Get custom role credit limit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that a `monthly_credit_limit` of `null` means no role-level limit — but nothing about auth beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The trailing 'Read operation.' is redundant given readOnlyHint=true, a minor waste, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the key return semantic (null = no limit). Combined with fully documented parameters and a read-only profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling routing is under-explained.

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 role_id, organization_id, user_id, and account are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'returns the monthly credit limit of one custom role.' The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_role_credit_limits, but it never names that sibling or set_role_credit_limit, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular scoping ('one custom role'). There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no reference to the natural alternatives (list_role_credit_limits for enumeration, set_role_credit_limit for mutation), leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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