Request more credits

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the human review step before submission and the email-reply-to-owner outcome, which tells the agent the request is asynchronous and not instantaneous. It does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive or any rate/submission limits, but the added process context is meaningful.

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 tight sentences: the purpose and the review/notification behavior come first, the alternative path last. No filler or restated title text.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the observable outcome (email reply to the organization owner) and the human-review gate, so the agent knows what happens after the call. The gap is the undocumented parameter bounds, not the behavioral picture.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only alludes to 'the amount and the reason', which loosely maps to credits and reason but omits the 1–100 credit ceiling and the reason length constraint that the schema enforces silently.

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 ('Ask Thalus for more assessment credits') with scope, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling air_get_credit_balance for immediate purchases. An agent can distinguish this from the many air_list_*/air_get_* siblings without opening a schema.

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 a clear routing rule: use air_get_credit_balance if you want to buy immediately rather than request. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when a request would be rejected, but the alternative path is named with its selecting condition.

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