check_credits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and the description identifies the type of data returned (usage/credits). However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention any authorization needs, or describe potential failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence of 14 words. It front-loads the core action ('Report VOYGR usage/credits') and follows with the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It names the resource type (VOYGR usage/credits) and the intended use case (explain spend and holds). The output schema can handle return-value details, so no additional description is necessary.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the scoring rules, 0 parameters merits a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-related meaning because there are no parameters to explain. No deduction is applied.

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 function: 'Report VOYGR usage/credits'. The verb 'Report' is specific and the resource ('VOYGR usage/credits') is explicit. It also conveys the intended outcome ('so the agent can explain spend and holds'), which adds purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on places and calls.

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 phrase 'so the agent can explain spend and holds' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs to answer questions about spending or holds. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though sibling tools are clearly unrelated to credits.

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