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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that an API key is required and that calling the tool costs 1 record, which are key non-obvious traits. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but for a simple quota lookup this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Your key's quota position') followed by a succinct list of output fields and key constraints. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool returns, what it requires, and what it costs. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters and an empty input schema. Per calibration, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed; it correctly focuses on the outputs and prerequisites.

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 identifies what the tool does: it reports the API key's quota position, including plan, monthly record limit, records used, remaining, and reset time. This is a distinct resource and purpose compared to sibling tools, which focus on data queries and table operations.

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 context for when to use this tool: to check quota position before or during API usage. It states the prerequisite (requires an API key) and the cost (1 record), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The use case is nonetheless unambiguous.

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