misakanet_usage_status

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states 'Error cases: none. Side effects: none. Auth: none. Rate limits: none.' This fully discloses behavioral traits, leaving no ambiguity.

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 paragraph but well-structured with purpose, input semantics, output schema, and edge cases. It is concise without unnecessary words, though could be more structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists all output fields (user, free_reads_used, etc.) and covers error, side effects, auth, rate limits. Fully complete for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds value by explaining the default value and providing example identifiers (e.g., 'anon:iphash', 'token:xxx'), going beyond the schema.

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 'Check current usage status and remaining quota' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like misakanet_submit_usage, misakanet_search, and misakanet_get_lesson.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use to see how many free lesson reads remain and how many credits are available.' It mentions optional user parameter with default, providing context for when to use it.

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