check_credits

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

The description discloses that the tool is free, calls the Account API, and consumes no credits — context not present in annotations. It also notes the API key requirement, adding operational detail beyond the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 compact paragraphs: the first lists the returned data, the second gives usage guidance and prerequisites. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload, cost behavior, prerequisites, and when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description implicitly confirms no inputs are needed by focusing entirely on what the tool returns, meeting the baseline for a 0-parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the Easyparser account' and enumerates the exact data returned (plan, credit balance, reset date, rate limits, daily usage breakdown). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which focus on bulk jobs, products, and sales.

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 states explicit use cases: 'before running expensive multi-page or 12-month-history jobs,' 'when the user asks about their quota or plan,' and 'to analyze usage patterns.' It does not name alternatives, but the sibling list makes clear this is the only account/credit tool, so the context is sufficient.

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