check_credits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using the word 'check', but it does not disclose what the response contains, whether any side effects exist, or whether authentication or rate limits apply. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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-parameter, read-only tool, the description is largely complete: the agent knows what the tool does and that it requires no arguments. However, since there is no output schema, the absence of any statement about the return format (e.g., a number or object) leaves a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for a trivial 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds nothing false or misleading.

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 'Check remaining API credits' states a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('remaining API credits'). It is immediately distinct from all sibling tools, which are generation, transformation, or estimation tools, so an agent can identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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 no usage context, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to use this tool instead of estimate_cost or get_model_info, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate timing from the name alone.

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