gen_uthana_check_download_allowed

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It suggests a read-only check ('Check whether...') and hints at quota economics, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free, whether it consumes quota itself, or what it returns beyond what the output schema may imply.

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 short and front-loaded with its core purpose. The KB reference and example are compact and useful, with no redundant filler. It is efficient, though a bit sparse on details.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter coverage in the schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough on its own. It relies on an external KB link and leaves timeout_s, character_id, and behavioral side effects ambiguous. The output schema exists but its contents are not available in the description.

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. It only shows an example for motion_id and gives no explanation of timeout_s or character_id. The example adds minimal syntax but not meaning for these optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a Uthana motion download is allowed before consuming quota.' This clearly identifies the tool as a pre-download gate and distinguishes it from siblings like gen_uthana_download_motion and gen_uthana_get_motion.

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 phrase 'before consuming quota' implies the tool should be used prior to a download, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The KB reference may help but is not a substitute for direct guidance.

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