get_message_quota

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), returns structured quota data (total, used, remaining), and is time-bound ('for this month'). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the output details. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every sentence adding essential 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does and what data it returns. It could improve by mentioning if the quota resets monthly or any prerequisites, but for a simple read tool, it's sufficient.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the specific action ('Get remaining message quota') and resource ('for this month'), with precise scope details ('Shows total allowed, used, and remaining messages'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_message_delivery_stats by focusing on quota metrics rather than delivery performance.

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 implies usage context through 'for this month' and the data it returns, suggesting it's for monitoring usage limits. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account_info (which might include quota data) or when not to use it (e.g., for real-time delivery tracking).

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