get_credit_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response semantics beyond the output schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the action and resource. The endpoint and parameter are listed cleanly with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, which prevents a higher score.

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 simple shape (one parameter, output schema present, rich annotations), the description still lacks any context about what a 'credit' is, when to use this getter, or how it relates to sibling tools like list_credit. An agent without domain knowledge would be unable to determine when to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the id parameter meaningfully. It only says 'id: Path parameter,' which restates the schema's existence without adding domain meaning, such as what the id refers to or how to obtain it. This is minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 begins with 'Read Credit,' which states the verb and resource clearly. It identifies this as a read operation on a single credit entity, but it does not differentiate it from siblings like list_credit or other get_*_by_id tools beyond the resource name itself.

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. No mention of typical scenarios, exclusions, or sibling tools such as list_credit or get_movie_by_id. The description is only a REST endpoint stub, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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