QuotaTick

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely useful context: a 24-hour freshness window, UTC timestamps, a probabilistic ('estimated probability') rather than deterministic value, and attribution to a live official source page. It does not mention rate limits or caching, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the question the tool answers and then lists the payload. Every clause carries information, though the output enumeration is somewhat list-heavy for a one-parameter query tool.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It is complete enough for a simple enum-parameter status lookup, with only minor omissions around data sourcing or latency.

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% and the single 'tool' parameter is fully enumerated in the schema, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only echoes the '<tool>' placeholder without adding format or selection guidance, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 names a specific query ('did <tool> reset its usage limits today?') and enumerates the exact outputs, so the agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with the generic siblings list_events/list_tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing — call it when you need a reset-status answer for one tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as list_events for historical reset data.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered 'newest first' and each item carries its official source link, which tells the agent what to expect in the payload.

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, no filler. The event categories (resets, promotions, limit changes, discontinued plans) are front-loaded, and the optional filtering is stated last where it belongs.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/open-world access, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the enumerable event categories and default ordering well. Only the result cap behavior is left entirely to the schema, a minor gap.

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%, so all three parameters including enums and the 1-50 range are fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the tool/group filters but adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('list recent events for AI coding tools') and enumerates the exact event categories covered, so the agent knows what content to expect. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_reset_status or list_tools, leaving the sibling distinction to inference.

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 single clause 'Optionally filter by tool and by group' implies when to pass filters and when to omit them (schema reinforces with 'omit for all'), but there is no guidance on when to call this over get_reset_status or list_tools. Minimal viable context only.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (the specific metrics returned, UTC timestamps, that it is argument-free), but since an output schema exists, the field enumeration largely duplicates structured data rather than adding new behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the returned fields and the intended use. Three sentences, each carrying information, with no 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 no-argument, read-only listing tool with an output schema already documenting return structure, nothing further is needed. Purpose, invocation, and use case are all covered.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no arguments', which is consistent with the empty schema and removes any doubt about invocation.

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 (list) and resource (AI coding tools tracked by QuotaTick) and enumerates the exact payload fields: reset time, hours since, 30-day reset count, and 24h reset probability. This is distinguishable from get_reset_status, which an agent can infer is the single-tool counterpart.

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 clear positive guidance ('Use it to find a tool's slug or to compare tools') plus the constraint that it takes no arguments. It does not explicitly name get_reset_status or list_events as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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