Add Credit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that an add operation occurs. It does not disclose side effects such as whether the balance is affected, whether amounts must be positive, whether records can be duplicated, or any permissions required.

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 single sentence is efficient and free of filler, stating the action and the domain ('tracker') in a few words. It is appropriately compact, though the brevity leaves substantive detail to other dimensions.

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?

The definition is adequate for a trivial add operation but incomplete for an agent: four parameters have 0% schema coverage, no annotations exist, and no guidance is given about parameter semantics or alternatives. An output schema exists, but the description still does not provide enough context for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it mentions none by name. 'Money received' hints that amount is an inflow and source is where it came from, yet date format, note semantics, and source behavior remain undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('credit') and clarifies that credit means 'money received,' which separates it from add_expense. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the parenthetical makes the core purpose unambiguous.

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 'money received' implies the tool is for recording incoming funds, so an agent can infer when to use it versus add_expense or list_credits. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer.

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