get_store_automation_credits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuine behavioral value: it enumerates what is returned (balance, allowance) and even the concrete allowance values (7 standard vs 21 AI Co-Manager) plus the refill schedule (Sunday 00:01 UTC). However, it omits read-only/auth expectations and any rate-limit or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the three return elements with zero filler. It is dense but every clause maps to a returned datum, so nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what the caller receives (balance, allowance, refill time). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could note read-only semantics.

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 100%, so store_id is already documented in the schema; the description only echoes 'for a store' without adding format or accepted-value detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource (automation credit balance, weekly allowance, refill time), making the tool's job unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearest sibling get_store_limits, but the credit domain is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative applies (e.g., get_store_limits vs this credit inspector). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and resource described.

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