billing

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: MODE: read-only (safe), AUTH: OAuth 2.0 required, CREDITS: 0 (free), and OUTPUT structure for both actions. This fully informs the agent of what to expect.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE) and is concise. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two sub-operations, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers both actions, describes return structures, states authentication requirements, and provides usage context. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (action with enum, network_code). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: inspecting OrbiAds account billing, specifically credit balance and transaction history. It uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and identifies the resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'audit' or 'campaign' which have different domains.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each sub-operation: 'Call get_credit_balance before write operations to confirm sufficient credits. Use list_transactions for usage auditing.' This clearly states the context and purpose, helping the agent choose correctly.

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