quota_probe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool performs authenticated reads, consumes 2-3 quota units, and is non-mutating by nature. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., behavior when already rate-limited) or whether results vary by auth scope, but the key operational traits are transparent.

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 tight sentences with the action and output front-loaded; the quota note is useful and earned. The only deduction is the '#330 gauntlet' phrasing, which is internal jargon that a generic agent cannot resolve — it occupies space without contributing actionable meaning.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documented enum parameters, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns (quota state, Retry-After, 403 map), and its quota cost. Gaps remain: no explicit trigger conditions for invocation, and the read-count mismatch with probe_set=full undermines the stated quota contract. With no output schema, the return description is adequate but could be more precise about the 'quota state' format.

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, but the description introduces a misleading inconsistency: it claims 'Fire 2-3... reads' and 'Quota: 2-3 reads,' while the schema's probe_set=full enumerates four endpoints (/me, /me/player, /me/top/tracks, /me/audiobooks). An agent selecting 'full' would exceed the stated quota footprint. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and actively conflicts with it.

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 action ('Fire 2-3 lightweight authenticated reads') and a concrete deliverable ('Retry-After / quota state plus a per-endpoint 403 gating map'). This is clearly differentiated from all siblings, which are data retrievals, searches, or mutations — none of them probe rate-limit/quota state. The 'actionable evidence for the #330 gauntlet' clause adds context without obscuring the core purpose.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for diagnosing quota/403 conditions, and the '#330 gauntlet' reference hints at a specific workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives, when not to use it, or whether it should precede heavy API operations. An agent is left to infer the intended triggers from the tool name and description.

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