Get credit limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not state permissions, error behavior, or what kind of credit-limit data is returned, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 short fragment with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. The unspaced camelCase phrasing is slightly rough, but there is no structural waste.

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 one-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description gives enough to invoke the tool. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the returned credit-limit information or access requirements.

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%, and the schema already documents accountId as the 'ALSO Cloud Account ID'. The description repeats 'company accountId' but adds no format or constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 'GetCreditLimit for company accountId' largely restates the tool name and title rather than adding a clearer definition of what the credit limit result represents. The phrase 'for company accountId' only echoes the required parameter and does not meaningfully distinguish it from siblings such as set_credit_limit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_credit_limit or the credit-check-order tools. The agent must infer that this is the read-only way to view a company's credit limit.

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