tokportal_get_credit_costs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false. The description 'Get credit pricing' aligns with those and is consistent (neither contradicts nor adds beyond them). It adds no extra behavioral context like return format or scope, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence that conveys the purpose. It could be slightly front-loaded but is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and no output schema needed, the description is nearly complete. It might benefit from noting it returns pricing info, but given the low complexity, it is adequate.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter description burden. The tool requires no inputs, and the description correctly implies it is a simple fetch. It adds sufficient meaning that no parameters are needed.

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 pricing' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('credit pricing'), and there are sibling tools like 'tokportal_get_credit_balance' and 'tokportal_list_credit_transactions' that suggest different credit-related operations, aiding distinction.

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. Among siblings, some are also getters (e.g., 'tokportal_get_credit_balance'), and the description provides no context for when to choose this one, such as what pricing information it returns.

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