check_credits

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable extra context by stating it calls the Account API, consumes no credits, and requires an API key. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand the operation's real-world 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical 'consumes no credits' fact. The second paragraph adds use cases and authentication requirements without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description still fully explains what data is returned, when to use it, and the auth requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its likely usefulness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to document. The description focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, which is appropriate and makes the schema trivial to satisfy.

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 exactly what is returned: plan, credit balance, reset date, rate limits, and daily usage breakdown. This clearly distinguishes the tool from all product- and seller-focused sibling tools.

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 explicit usage context: use before costly jobs, when the user asks about quota/plan, or for usage pattern analysis. It also explains that it consumes no credits, which helps an agent decide to call it. However, it names no alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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