List Collection Credits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose line: it does not disclose pagination behavior, default filtering (onlyActive=true, includeExpired=true), or what a returned credit package includes, leaving meaningful behavior unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb and scoping are immediately clear. It is perhaps overly terse given the tool's eight parameters, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With eight parameters, no output schema, and no return-value documentation, the description should at minimum explain that results are filterable/paged credits and what fields a package contains. As written it is adequate only in the narrowest sense for such a parameter-rich 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters including index, nValues, minBalance, onlyActive, sortColumn and sortDirection are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List credit packages') scoped to a collection, which distinguishes it from coll_credit_transactions/credit_history siblings. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling to use for transactions versus packages, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the required collId being mandatory), and no routing to alternatives such as transkribus_credit_get_package_transactions or transkribus_coll_credit_history. The agent must infer all usage context.

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