upc_shiguang_credits

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding genuinely new behavioral facts: required/remaining credits will be null because the page lacks them, hours and credits are kept in separate fields, and no URL/account/header/cookie input is accepted. That last point usefully confirms the tool is hard-scoped to the bound session.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then two terse supporting lines covering parsing source, null-field caveat, and input restrictions. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does disclose the key fields (hours, credits, rank) plus the deliberate nulls. It omits the shape of the rank value and whether hours are cumulative or term-scoped, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 is a single non-required parameter with zero schema description coverage, but the description compensates by stating that no account or credential input exists and that the target is the 'bound user' — explaining why session_ref is a fixed 'self' rather than a selectable identifier. The meaning an agent needs is present even though the schema text is not.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (read credits/hours and rank for the bound user) in the Shiguang module, which is enough to distinguish it from upc_shiguang_activities or upc_shiguang_report_card. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 note that it 'parses the report-card page's server-rendered hidden inputs' implies it is a narrow extractor sitting beside upc_shiguang_report_card, but it never says when to pick this tool over that one or when it would be the wrong choice. Usage is left to inference.

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