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 discloses that the operation does not consume quota (a key read-only trait) and requires authentication. It does not cover edge cases like error responses or rate limits, but for a simple quota check, the essential behavioral traits are well covered.

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 extremely concise, using two short bilingual sentences to convey purpose, auth requirements, and non-consumption. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant explanation.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to authenticate, and that it doesn't consume quota. It doesn't detail the exact response format, but the purpose statement already implies the return value (plan and remaining quota), making this sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented (including security defaults and token override behavior). The description merely restates these requirements without adding new semantic information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check' / '查詢') and resource ('your plan and remaining monthly quota'), and further enumerates the categories (錄製/回溯/MCP 讀取). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_usage_stats by focusing specifically on quota rather than general usage.

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 provides clear usage context by specifying the required authentication (user_email + session_token) and noting that checking does not consume quota, which is important for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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