check_credits

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the "daily" cadence hint; it says nothing about whether the balance resets, or what a zero/low balance implies for other tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing wasteful and the key noun phrase arrives immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple parameterless read tool with strong annotations, the definition is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the agent gets no signal about what comes back (a count, a limit, a reset timestamp) or what the credits gate. "Daily" is left uninterpreted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related omissions exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ("Check") and resource ("daily recognition credit balance") make the tool's job unambiguous. It doesn't need to distinguish itself from the book-centric siblings because none of them touch credits, but it also never acknowledges them, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this before or after recognition operations to verify quota. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisite, and no named alternative (e.g., which recognition tool consumes these credits).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.