get_quota_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the critical trait: probe_now is not a passive read — it triggers recovery probes and resumes waiting tickets. That is exactly the side-effect an agent needs to know before flipping a boolean. It stops short of saying whether that action can fail, is idempotent, or requires permissions.

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 tight sentences with the resource list front-loaded and the parameter effect immediately after. The stray double-backtick markup around probe_now is minor packaging noise rather than a comprehension problem.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers what is returned and the one behavioral wrinkle of the parameter. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance versus the closely named sibling report_quota_status.

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 compensate for the single parameter, and it does: probe_now is explained as triggering recovery probes plus resuming waiting tickets. The default of false is visible in the schema, but the description doesn't note that omitting the flag leaves the queue untouched.

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 concrete verb ("Show") and names both resources it surfaces: quota circuits and the waiting_for_quota queue. That is clear enough to distinguish it from a status-writing sibling like report_quota_status, though the description never makes that contrast explicit.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the diagnostic view for quota circuits and stuck tickets, and that probe_now is the nudge to unstick them. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus report_quota_status or get_integration_status, and no warning about when probe_now should be avoided.

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