share_get_point_transfer_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is scoped to the current month and to received (incoming) transfers only, and it is broken into used, pending, reserved and remaining buckets — including a pending state an agent should know about.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the breakdown of returned fields. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and the zero-parameter schema needs no coverage. The remaining gap is minor: nothing says whether the buckets are per-currency or whether an empty result means no incoming transfer address exists yet.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The only implicit parameter-like choice, the time window, is fixed by the description to the current month.

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?

States a specific verb (查看) and resource (本月接收转账额度) and enumerates the four buckets returned (已用/待处理/预留/剩余), so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-miss siblings such as share_get_redeem_quota or share_list_point_transfer_records, leaving differentiation to the name.

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 '本月' scope implies this is a status check for incoming point transfers, which an agent can reasonably link to share_create_point_transfer/share_handle_point_transfer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisite (e.g. login) called out.

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