Get API Credits

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior - it returns a count of credits rather than mutating anything - but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the balance is plan-scoped or resets. For a zero-side-effect read tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the reason to call it. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and roughly what comes back ('number of available API credits'). Only minor details (exact return shape, auth prerequisite) are unstated, which is low-risk here.

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. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the number of available API credits') plus the account scope ('your LeadMagic account'). This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which all perform email/profile/company/job lookups rather than account-level quota inspection.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it ('monitoring usage and planning API calls'), so an agent knows this is a pre-flight/quota-check tool. There are no competing siblings to exclude, so the absence of explicit when-not guidance is not a real gap.

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