Get Credit Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reports not just the quota but also operational limits (max pages per upload, max upload size, daily spend cap), clarifying what the query returns for batch sizing. No contradictions with 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 key distinction and purpose are front-loaded in the first sentence. The 'Use for' enumeration and operational-limit details add value for an agent handling natural-language queries, though a couple of phrases could be tightened. No wasted or redundant sentences.

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 zero-input, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the concept (credits = pages), the exact resource (quota, not transactions), and common use cases. An agent can confidently decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect from it.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description did its job by explaining the semantics of the returned data (credits, limits, conversion to pages) rather than any input fields.

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 resource ('remaining Bankstatemently credits — the processing quota') and explicitly disambiguates it from 'credit/debit transactions'. The '1 credit = 1 page' exchange rate and the mention of plan operational limits make the tool's scope unmistakable, even distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_transactions.

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 gives explicit natural-language triggers ('Use for: how many credits do I have, remaining pages, plan limits, quota, how many pages can I upload') and a clear when-not ('NOT credit/debit transactions'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool for transaction queries, but the exclusion is sufficient.

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