List Collection Credits

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as handling of invalid collId, or whether results are filtered by default. It is adequate but does not exceed what annotations provide.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it might be too terse for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema; a bit more context would be helpful without being verbose.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values or indicate that filtering and sorting are available via parameters. The annotations and schema cover the rest, making it moderately complete for a simple list operation.

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, the schema itself documents all 8 parameters, including collId, minBalance, includeExpired, etc. The description does not add meaning beyond 'list credit packages', so it meets the baseline but offers no extra value.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'credit packages', and specifies they are associated with a collection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transkribus_credit_list_by_user which list by user, and transkribus_coll_credit_history which shows history. The purpose is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as transkribus_coll_credit_history for transaction history or transkribus_credit_get for general credit info. It lacks any prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical use cases.

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