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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content ('usage and limit') in the absence of an output schema, plus the underlying GET /quota/{entity} route, though it says nothing about error or auth behavior.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternative-tool hint following immediately. Every fragment earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the response contains (usage and limit) and how to obtain the required entity name. Only minor gaps remain, such as hierarchy or invalid-entity behavior.

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 parameter is already documented with the same 'instance' example, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 precisely what is returned (usage and limit) for a specific resource (one quota entity) and names the example entity 'instance'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling exoscale_list_quotas by framing that tool as the source of entity names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to exoscale_list_quotas to discover valid entity names, which is the key prerequisite. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or what happens for an invalid entity, but the primary usage path is clear.

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