cloud_qotas_get_by_region

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

Without annotations, the description implies a read operation ('Get') with no destructive behavior. It explains the region_id requirement but lacks details on authorization, error conditions, or response format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, with a short line for purpose, a bullet list of parameters, and a note. It is front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list could be omitted if the schema were descriptive, but it still serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., quota values, format). For a complex tool with 6 parameters, more detail on expected output or behavior is needed for completeness.

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 lists parameter names with minimal explanations (e.g., 'Send extra headers') that add little beyond the names themselves. The note about region_id is helpful, but overall parameter semantics are weak.

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 clearly states 'Get quotas for a specific region and client', specifying the verb, object, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_qotas_get_all and cloud_qotas_get_global by indicating it is region- and client-specific.

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 description provides explicit guidance on how to obtain the numeric region_id using cloud.regions.list or cloud.regions.get, and advises to get the default region if none is mentioned. However, it does not contrast with sibling quota tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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