list_surfing_quota_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates 'List' (implying read-only) but provides no details on output format, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. For a list operation, basic behavioral context like return structure is missing.

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?

Description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary phrasing.

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 and minimal description, the tool is simple (no parameters) but the description lacks context about what 'surfing quota policies' are and what the response contains. It is minimally adequate but could be improved with a note about the format or scope of quotas.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The description does not add parameter info because there are none. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'List surfing quota policies' with parenthetical explanation 'time-based internet quotas'. The verb and resource are specific, and the tool name distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firewall_rules, list_web_filter_policies, etc. However, no explicit differentiation from siblings is included.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_access_time_policies, get_time_settings). The description simply states what the tool does without context for appropriate use.

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