Check Credit Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main behavioral contribution is explaining that the tool operates only on the authenticated user's own data. It adds the detail about subscription plans and next refresh date, providing modest context beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 well-structured with a primary paragraph and a clear scope section. It is concise without being under-specified, though the scope bullet could be slightly tightened.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, and return value hints. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit success/failure response details, but that is acceptable for a read-only 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description faces no burden. It adds value by explaining what the returned data includes (credits remaining, next monthly refresh date), giving the agent useful semantic context about the output.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current Giggal.ai credit balance for the authenticated user'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on credits, not emails or verification details.

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 explicitly states the scope (only authenticated user's own balance) and what it does not return (other users, verification methods, etc.). While it provides clear context and exclusions, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus siblings.

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