tokportal_get_credit_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which inform the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description 'Get credit balance' is consistent with these hints but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., how often the balance updates, whether caching applies). The description does not contradict the 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 a single, brief sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easily parsable. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 description is minimal and adequate for a parameterless read-only tool. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the credit balance refers to (e.g., user account balance, platform credit pool) or the format/scope of the returned value. Given the sibling tools and lack of additional context, the description could be more complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema fully covers the interface. The description adds the semantic that the tool retrieves a credit balance, which is meaningful given the empty schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (trivially), the baseline is 3, but the description provides helpful context beyond the empty schema, warranting a 4.

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 'Get credit balance' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (credit balance), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'tokportal_get_credit_costs' or 'tokportal_list_credit_transactions', which also deal with credit information.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tokportal_get_credit_costs for costs, tokportal_list_credit_transactions for transaction history). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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