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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about quota/rate-limit status and feed limits, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe auth needs or exact formats, but for a simple read-only usage tool this is sufficient.

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 fragment with no filler. Every element earns its place by naming a distinct piece of returned information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what is returned. It lists the key return values (quotas, next find_jobs allowance, feed count and limit), which is adequate for this simple, parameterless tool. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying formatting or whether all fields are always present, but it covers the essentials.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies when there are no params.

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 specifies the resource clearly: hourly/daily quotas, next find_jobs allowance, and feed count/limit. It is not a full verb phrase, but the tool name and listed outputs make the purpose unambiguous. It also references find_jobs, helping distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 mention of 'when the next find_jobs is allowed' implies the tool is used to check timing before calling find_jobs. However, there is no explicit instruction to use this tool instead of alternatives, and no when-not guidance. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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