check_credits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It accurately indicates a read-only check but offers no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. It does not contradict any 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action 'Check'. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could potentially mention what the output contains (e.g., credit balance amount, plan name) but this is not critical for a basic check tool.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description adds value by stating the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema. It effectively explains what the tool does without needing parameter details.

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 retrieves credit balance and subscription plan, with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'Litra.ai credit balance and subscription plan'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools that involve searching for authors or papers.

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 implies usage for checking account details but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context of siblings suggests it's a read-only utility, but no exclusions or caveats are stated.

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