get_credits_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It indicates a read-only operation by stating it shows information and does not mention any side effects. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe, which would enhance transparency.

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 sentences: first focuses on purpose, second on usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. The [query] placeholder is minor but does not detract.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (credit details with specific fields). It is complete enough for its simplicity, though it could note that it does not modify data.

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%. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 it shows detailed information about credits, listing specific fields (free, purchased, used percentage, renewal date). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying when to use it: when the user asks specifically about credits.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this action when the user asks specifically about credits,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the specificity, it's sufficient.

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