get_search_quota_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the budget is self-imposed and resets daily ('today's'), and implies a non-destructive read. It doesn't detail output format or potential side effects, but for a status check, the key behaviors are covered.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, followed by a practical usage tip. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully conveys what it reports (usage and remaining) and when to use it (before large batches). The complexity is low, and the description leaves no major gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers all inputs. The description adds no parameter meaning, but with no parameters present, this is appropriate. Baseline of 4 is warranted.

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 the specific verb 'Reports' and clearly identifies the resource: today's self-imposed DuckDuckGo request budget. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_linkedin_profiles by indicating this is a monitoring/status tool rather than a search tool.

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?

It explicitly says to check before large search batches, providing clear context on when to use. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a simple status tool with no direct alternatives.

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