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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the specific budget windows reported and the intended self-throttling use. It does not say what the response looks like or whether an omitted site_id returns a fleet-wide aggregate, which keeps it off a 5.

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 tight sentence with the action and the breakdown window list front-loaded and the purpose clause trailing. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more weight on what the report contains and how the optional parameters change it. It names the windows adequately but leaves the two parameters and the aggregate-vs-scoped behavior undefined.

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 0% and neither of the two parameters is documented anywhere. The phrase 'per-site-minute' weakly hints that site_id scopes the report, but tool_name is never mentioned and it is unclear whether these params filter the budget or report a hypothetical budget for a site/tool pair.

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 ('Report') and resource ('current rate-limit budget') and enumerates the exact windows covered (per-agency-minute, per-site-minute, runaway-same-minute, daily). No sibling covers this domain, so the scope statement alone is enough to distinguish it.

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?

'Enables LLM self-throttling' implies the use case (poll before issuing heavy calls), but there is no explicit when-to-call guidance, no stated cadence, and no note on when it is unnecessary or what to do with the numbers returned.

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