Check credit balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting 'Each scrape costs 2 credits' and 'Free to call,' clarifying the tool's cost and side-effect profile. This is useful additional context, though it does not detail rate limits or error 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds one cost detail and a 'free to call' note. Every sentence earns its place with no waste or redundancy.

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, no output schema, safe by annotations), the description provides sufficient context: what it does, it's free, and the credit cost per scrape. It is complete for an agent to understand when and why to use it.

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, and the input schema has 100% coverage (no properties). Per the rubric, when there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters it does not have.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('remaining gmapsscraper.io credit balance'). It is distinct from siblings like start_scrape_job or get_scrape_results, which focus on scraping operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 it is 'Free to call,' implying it can be used without cost or side effects, which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its purpose in relation to sibling scraping tools is obvious, so clear context is provided but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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