get_url_submission_quota

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and mentions daily/monthly quotas, which suggests no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, error behavior, or whether the query itself counts against any quota. Basic but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. Could be improved with slight expansion, but it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure (e.g., 'remaining count' or 'limit'). It mentions 'remaining daily/monthly quota' but does not specify what properties are returned. Also lacks prerequisites or context for interpreting quota values. Adequate for a simple query but incomplete for autonomous agent use.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'site_url' is the site for which to get quota, but does not specify URL format (e.g., full URL versus domain) or any validation rules. It adds basic context but lacks detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('remaining daily/monthly URL submission quota') and scope ('for a site'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_content_submission_quota which deals with content quota, and submit_url which is for submission, not quota checking.

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 implies the tool is used to check quota before submitting URLs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_content_submission_quota, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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