Read GenieLocker prepaid credit pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral context by stating it never creates a wallet or buys credits, and notes the data is 'current,' which aligns with openWorldHint. This goes slightly beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise safety clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is fully complete. It enumerates exactly what data is returned (credit definition, burn multipliers, tier pricing, examples) and is backed by comprehensive safety annotations.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail (not needed), but the baseline 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 clearly states the tool reads credit definition, burn multipliers, tier pricing, and examples. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('GenieLocker prepaid credit pricing'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it never creates wallets or buys credits.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to read current credit pricing) and an explicit when-not ('never creates a wallet or buys credits'). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks the explicit alternative naming that would earn a 5.

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