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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about how spend and concurrency are counted against the credential versus the team, which is not in 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?

It is two sentences, front-loaded with the list of quota dimensions, and has little waste. The second sentence is useful but slightly ambiguous in phrasing ('signed in again'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 parameterless, read-only quota tool with no output schema, the description provides enough detail about what is returned and the credential-counting semantics. It could be clearer about response shape, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and focuses on what the returned quota information covers.

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 enumerates the resource being reported: remaining daily spend, credits, concurrency, allowed sizes, and disk for the current key. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'report', but the content is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings such as briq_status or briq_list.

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: an agent would call this when it needs to know remaining limits before starting work. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like briq_status, and no exclusions.

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