misakanet_usage_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses error behavior ('returns defaults on failure'), auth requirements (none), and rate limits (none) — all facts the structured fields do not provide. The 'side effects: none' line mildly echoes destructiveHint=false, but the surrounding context is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and sequencing before the labeled reference sections (input/output/errors/side effects), and every block is scannable. Slight redundancy: the 'user' parameter is described in both the prose and the schema, and 'side effects: none' duplicates the annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (free_reads_used, free_reads_limit, free_reads_remaining, credits, is_registered, next), including the 'next' hint that ties into the register/submit workflow. For a single-optional-param read tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the two identifier forms ('anon:iphash' vs 'token:xxx') and where the token comes from (misakanet_register). It repeats the default value already in the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 and resource: 'Check current usage status and remaining quota', which an agent can distinguish from misakanet_submit_usage (which consumes quota) and misakanet_register (which upgrades to write access). The description also explicitly names both siblings, so differentiation is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit sequencing ('Use before calling misakanet_submit_usage') and a clear conditional branch ('Call misakanet_register if is_registered is false and you need write access'). Both when-to-use and which-alternative-to-pick are spelled out.

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