Get Auto Topup

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the inert-when-no-payment-method behavior and the constraint that a card can only be saved on porkbun.com, never through the API. It could go further on how effectiveAmount is computed, but this is solid added value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads before the caveats. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence stacks two distinct warnings and is a little dense.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so by naming the key fields and the meaning of effectiveAmount. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though it does not describe the concrete type/format of the numeric fields.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Though there is nothing to disambiguate on input, the description explains the semantics of the returned fields (notably `effectiveAmount` and `paymentMethodOnFile`), which compensates for the absence of any other field documentation.

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 ('Read') and resource ('auto top-up configuration') and enumerates exactly what is returned: on/off state, threshold, amount, payment-method-on-file, and effectiveAmount. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like configure_auto_topup and top_up_account_credit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it clarifies that effectiveAmount is what top_up_account_credit would charge, which hints at the read-before-write relationship, and warns that settings are inert without a payment method. But it never explicitly says when to call this versus configure_auto_topup or the other top-up siblings, nor any preconditions.

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