get_credits_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it 'does not consume API credits,' which is crucial for understanding its impact. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving some gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function, usage context, and a key behavioral trait ('does not consume API credits'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 (simple, no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and a critical behavioral aspect. However, it could improve by detailing the response format or error handling, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear context.

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: 'Check available API credits, usage statistics, account information, and browser plugin limits.' It uses specific verbs ('check') and resources ('API credits,' 'usage statistics,' etc.), making the function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_credits_for_audit_stats,' which might offer overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 clear context for usage: 'Perfect for monitoring API usage and planning resource-heavy operations.' This gives practical guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_credits_for_audit_stats,' which could be relevant for more specific scenarios.

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