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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'authenticated account' context, which is useful but also implied by the token parameter. It does not disclose additional behavior such as what happens when quota is exceeded or whether the operation is instantaneous. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. There is no redundant wording, and it immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It states what is read and for whom. It could benefit from a note about the absence of side effects, but that is already covered by annotations. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the token parameter is fully described in the schema with a note about preferring Authorization: Bearer. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('current quota and reservation usage for the authenticated account'). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like astrologos.job_status (job status) and astrologos.run (execute jobs), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 is functional but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or recommend alternatives (e.g., 'Use this to check usage before running a job'). The use case is implied by the resource, but no explicit when-to-use context is provided.

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