list_credit_bundles

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

The description honestly states the tool lists bundles and returns specific fields. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is truthful about being read-only but lacks extra context like authentication or rate limits.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second describes return values. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no parameters and an implied output schema, the description covers the essentials. It mentions the return fields (ID, credit amount, price, description). Could be improved by noting ordering or pagination, but fine for a simple list-all 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable for a parameter-less tool.

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 clearly states the tool lists available credit bundles for purchase, specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'credit bundles'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'credits_checkout' (purchase) and 'get_credit_balance' (check balance).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when-not-to-use or comparison with other credit-related tools.

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