Get Quota Usage

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it details the return structure (used/capacity per feature, null for unlimited, nextRefreshDate) and confirms the tool returns data without side effects. This is useful behavioral disclosure for an agent.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the usage trigger before explaining the response format. Every clause adds value—feature names, null semantics, and the ISO timestamp—without redundancy. No filler or unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains exactly what the tool returns, including the specific fields and their possible null values. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which confirms the parameterless nature and matches the schema exactly. For a no-parameter tool, the baseline is 4, and the description fulfills this.

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 'get' with resource 'quota usage and capacity' and enumerates the exact billable features (DIVED_ASINS, RANK_RADAR_KEYWORDS, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention quota.

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 provides explicit usage triggers: 'when the user asks how much quota or how many tokens they have left' and 'before creating a Niche Dive or Rank Radar to check remaining headroom.' This is clear context for when to use, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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