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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: interlocking of multi-question conditions, automatic binding of age to standard questions, and the fact that limits are expressed in completes. These details help an agent predict how the tool behaves. There is no contradiction with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: demographic setup, own-question setup, and unit clarification. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 create operation with 8 parameters, the description covers the key decision points: quota type selection, demographic vs. own-question cells, and interlock semantics. The schema already documents all parameters, and the annotations cover side-effect hints. The description does not mention the 'location' quota_type variant, though the schema does, and it does not state what the tool returns, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value on top of the schema by explicitly mapping quota_type to its companion parameters (gender or age_from/age_to) and by explaining interlocking behavior for conditions. It also clarifies that qlimit is in completes, reinforcing the qlimit schema description.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Cap how many completes a group may fill,' which immediately conveys quota creation. It goes on to distinguish demographic-cell quotas from own-question-cell quotas, giving the tool concrete scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools (like add_quota_condition or update_quota), but the creation-focused behavior is evident.

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 gives clear contextual guidance for the two main modes: use quota_type 'gender' or 'age' for demographic cells, and use conditions for own-question cells. It explains the difference between these modes and how they should be parameterized. It does not mention alternatives such as add_quota_condition or update_quota, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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