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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's trailing 'Read-only' adds nothing. The genuinely new behavioral detail is that the payload includes reset timing and a data-freshness indicator, which signals results may be stale — useful, but modest given the annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the routing condition. The parenthetical list of quota dimensions is slightly dense but each item is meaningful; nothing is filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only quota check with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, when to call it, and the freshness caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 no parameters, so the schema imposes nothing an agent must interpret. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, with no compensating explanation needed or missing.

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 (show today's RBSHome connector allowance usage) and enumerates the tracked dimensions: calls, lead rows, property lookups, saves. It also separates itself from siblings by noting 'other tools report their own limits,' so an agent knows this is the connector-wide quota view rather than a per-tool report.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions — when the user asks, and before a task that needs more than 10 calls — plus an exclusion clause steering the agent elsewhere for per-tool limits. Both the when and the when-not are present, leaving little to inference.

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