emaki credit balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Free to call' is a genuine behavioral disclosure (no cost/credit consumption), but it says nothing about rate limits, whether the call is read-only, errors when the key is missing/invalid, or the shape of the returned balance.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the resource identity front-loaded and the cost note appended as supporting context. Every clause 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?

For a no-parameter read of a single value, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not indicate what the returned credit balance looks like (number vs. object) or how to interpret 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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies the exact resource (remaining credits) and scopes it to the account behind EMAKI_API_KEY, which distinguishes it from the generate_* and check_status siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, so it is clear but slightly less actionable than a '5' would require.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to check balance. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of how it relates to check_status or when to prefer it over generating, and no stated preconditions beyond the implicit API key.

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