api_quota

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's margin is smaller. It does add real context beyond the annotations: the quota is consumed by all private apps, and it is tracked over both an hourly and a monthly window. It stays silent on what happens when the quota is exhausted (error vs. indication), which is the behavior that would actually change an agent's next step.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the measurement is front-loaded, the parenthetical adds only essential context about shared limits, and the imperative usage sentence follows. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only quota check with no output schema, the description covers what is measured and when to call it. The remaining gap is the return shape (e.g., whether it yields two numbers plus reset timing), which it hints at but does not spell out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4, but the schema has no properties for the description to enrich and the description adds nothing about argument handling. There is simply nothing to disambiguate, so it lands at the neutral middle rather than being actively helpful.

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 states a specific resource and metric: remaining API requests in the current hour and month, qualified as the Fatture in Cloud quota shared across private apps. That is precise enough to distinguish it from ordinary data tools, though it never contrasts itself with the generic 'api_request' sibling, which an agent might otherwise reach for.

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?

"Usalo prima di operazioni in blocco" gives a concrete trigger condition (before bulk operations such as bulk_duplicate, bulk_email, bulk_send_einvoice). It gives no explicit when-not or alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is clear rather than implied.

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