upres_get_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. It conveys the authenticated context and the quota-proxy framing, but it does not define what 'recent' means, what the response looks like, or how the count relates to credits.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the core purpose is immediately clear.

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?

For a no-parameter status/quota tool, the core purpose is adequately conveyed. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without the return format or the exact time window behind 'recent', leaving minor ambiguity.

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 description has no parameter details to add; the schema already covers everything. The authentication context mentioned is useful but not a parameter semantic.

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 states a specific verb ('Show'), a precise resource ('recent job count for the authenticated UpRes API key'), and its conceptual role ('quota proxy'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upres_upscale_image or upres_get_job.

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 the use case: checking quota/credit consumption via recent job count. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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