获取订阅信息与积分余额

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It signals a read-only operation via '获取' and the explicit 'GET' endpoint, and it discloses the output scope (account subscription, credits, freeUsages, reset time). However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, rate limits, or whether the call consumes credits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that packs all essential information: resource, returned fields, account scope, and endpoint. No wasted words or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the endpoint and enumerates the key response components. It could be more complete by describing the shape/nesting of freeUsages or reset time, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per baseline guidance, 0 params receives a 4. The description adds value by explaining what the response contains, which is helpful even though there is nothing to configure for invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取') with a clear resource ('订阅信息与积分余额') and includes the exact fields returned: subscription status, available credits (monthly/permanent/limited-time), freeUsages, and reset time. It also names the corresponding GET endpoint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the image generation siblings.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to check current account subscription and credit balance, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like estimate_credits, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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