get_credits_for_audit_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates that this is a read-only operation ('check available audit credits') and explicitly states it doesn't consume API credits, which is crucial behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention response format, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 perfectly sized at two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, while the second provides crucial usage guidance and behavioral information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned (audit credit types) and important behavioral characteristics (non-consumptive). The main gap is the lack of information about response format, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic context of what credits are being checked ('audit credits including one-page audit, JavaScript scanning, and page crawl limits'), which provides useful information beyond the empty parameter schema.

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 with specific verbs ('check available audit credits') and resources ('one-page audit, JavaScript scanning, and page crawl limits'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_credits_stats' by focusing specifically on audit-related credits rather than general credit statistics.

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 this tool ('Use this before running site audits to verify available resources') and includes an important exclusion ('This method does not consume API credits'), which helps differentiate it from potentially credit-consuming operations among siblings.

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