Check Credit Balance

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds two useful traits not in structured data: calling it consumes no credits ('Free'), and for team members the returned balance is the shared team pool rather than a personal one.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the qualifiers after. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is only a routing note against the usage-listing sibling, making this near-complete for a simple read 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% with a documented enum and default, so the schema fully carries this burden. The description adds nothing about response_format, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome here.

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+resource ('Check the Meshy credit balance') that an agent can act on directly. It is clear and unambiguous, but it never differentiates itself from the nearby sibling meshy_list_usage, which an agent may reasonably confuse it with.

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?

'Free' implies usage (safe to call repeatedly, e.g. before expensive generations), but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is named. The team-scope note is contextual rather than a routing rule, so guidance is only implied.

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