get_sms_credit_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces a read-only behavior ('Makes no changes') and adds context about returning 'current period's sms credit usage and remaining balance', which enhances transparency.

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 relatively concise and uses a clear structure with headings and bullet-like statements. However, it contains some redundancy (two similar sentences about retrieving credit data) that could be streamlined.

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (usage and remaining balance). It does not detail pagination behavior, but the parameter schema provides that information.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, such as how limit/offset affect pagination or how filters/orders work.

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 gets SMS credit use data, specifies it's read-only, and mentions the endpoint path. It uniquely identifies a specific resource (SMS credits) among many sibling read tools.

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 indicates this tool is for fetching SMS credit data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Context implies using it when SMS credit info is needed.

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