share_get_redeem_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description adds no further behavioral context (auth requirements, freshness of quota, failure modes), so it clears the lower bar set by annotations but does not exceed it.

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 compact line that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the enum mapping. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 values need not be explained, and the one ambiguous parameter is fully decoded. What's missing is the relationship to the redeem flow and to sibling quota tools, which matters given the large sibling set.

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 carry the parameter meaning — and it does, by decoding each enum value (shuiyuan=水源, sjtuplus=选课社区, sjtuwiki=交大 Wiki). Those codes are opaque in the schema alone, so this is genuine added value; only the format/validity of the returned quota per source is left unstated.

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/view) and resource (合作站点可兑换积分 — partner-site redeemable points), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as share_get_point_transfer_quota or share_get_points_overview, so the agent must infer which 'quota' view it needs.

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: the agent can guess this is a pre-check before share_redeem_points, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or explicit alternative is named. The description also doesn't say whether login/auth is required despite many auth-related siblings.

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