Get credit usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's genuinely additive bits are ordering ("newest first") and the fact that emitted features may be open-ended ("company_enrichment, worker_run, scout, ..."), which hints that unseen feature names exist; the "usage and credits cannot be changed via the API" line largely restates readOnlyHint.

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?

Three compact sentences with the purpose, filters, safety note, and return shape in descending priority order; the identifying clause comes first and nothing is padded. The return-shape sentence is slightly less valuable because an output schema exists, but it is not verbose enough to hurt scannability.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required, read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations and a real output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering dimensions, ordering, safety, and a return summary. The remaining gap is routing guidance to sibling tools, not missing operational information.

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 100% schema description coverage across all 8 optional parameters, the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a coarse filter inventory (date range, feature, record, text) that maps to parameters the schema documents in more depth, so it adds little syntax or format meaning of its own.

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 ("Lists the workspace's credit usage") and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: timestamp, feature, credit count, and record. That is far more informative than the title "Get credit usage" alone. It stops short of a 5 because it never contrasts itself with plausible neighbors like heliyos_runs_list, which an agent could reasonably confuse with per-feature credit consumption.

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?

"Filter by date range, feature, record or text" implies the retrieval scenarios (auditing spend, drilling into one record or feature) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Nothing tells the agent what to do instead when it wants run-level detail rather than credit totals, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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