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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the detail that quotas are scoped to the authenticated team, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about response freshness, caching, or units of the quotas.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint. It could have used the second sentence more productively to disambiguate from get_api_usage_stats, but nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, annotations cover safety, and there are no parameters to document. The only meaningful gap is the lack of disambiguation from the sibling usage tool, which is a minor omission for an otherwise simple read-only tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameter claims are made or 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns usage quotas for the authenticated team") and gives concrete examples of what's included (social drop export count and limits). It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling get_api_usage_stats, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"Use when the user asks about usage, quotas, or limits" gives an implied trigger, but it offers no when-not guidance and doesn't address the obvious alternative, get_api_usage_stats. The agent is left to guess which of the two usage tools to pick.

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