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

The description is non-mutating in tone ('Show') and the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It adds useful context that the returned numbers are what the account/decks 'can still serve today,' which implies computed remaining capacity.

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, dense sentence with no filler, redundant wording, or repeated schema information. Every phrase adds information about what the tool returns.

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?

Given that the tool takes no input, the description fully covers the output context: account defaults, extra new cards granted today, per-deck overrides with null semantics, and remaining new/due counts. No additional context is necessary to call the 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 has no parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter detail for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a precise resource ('today's study limits'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: account defaults, per-deck overrides, and remaining new/due card counts. There is no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

The description makes it clear this is the read/query operation for study limits and includes the relevant scope ('today'), so an agent can select it when checking capacity. It does not explicitly contrast itself with set_limits or boost_new_today, but the intended use is inferable.

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