get_trip_credits

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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description only states the functional purpose.

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 very concise, with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter arguments in a clear format. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded. Could be improved by structuring the args more readably.

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 low parameter count and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it misses usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it incomplete for an agent to use without additional context.

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 must compensate. It provides basic meaning for 'locale' (default en_US) and 'account' (optional, uses default), but lacks details on format, allowed values, or behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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 retrieves 'Trip credits' and specifies they are 'multi-passenger / itinerary-level credits,' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_flight_credits' that likely operates per passenger.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_flight_credits' or 'get_account_summary.' The context signals indicate sibling tools exist but the description does not help the agent choose correctly.

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