get_credits_adjustments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string with totals, giveback percentage, transaction details) and parameters, but does not mention potential side effects, limitations, or behaviors like timezone handling, pagination, or custom range format. For a read-only 'get' tool, the lack of mutation disclosure is acceptable, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose line, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool has a simple signature (2 optional params, output schema) and the description covers purpose, parameters, and returns. It is sufficiently complete for a basic read tool, but lacks details on custom range formatting and any behavioral caveats, which would be needed for a more complex operation.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: app_id as optional filter and period with allowed values ('7d', '30d', '90d', '1y', or custom range). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema; however, it does not clarify the exact format for a custom range or other edge cases.

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 tracks credits, adjustments, and refunds, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transactions (general transactions) and get_revenue_summary (broader revenue). The verb 'Track' and resource scope are clear.

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 purpose implies usage when credit/adjustment/refund tracking is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons. Given the many sibling tools, more explicit guidance on choosing this over get_transactions or get_revenue_summary would improve clarity.

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