check_rate_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior by stating it returns a status with actionable advice, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits itself, or provides real-time data, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete by explaining the purpose and return values. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication needs or data freshness, which could enhance completeness for a rate-limiting tool. Without an output schema, it adequately describes returns but could be more thorough.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no additional semantics are needed beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Check') and resource ('rate limited'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on status assessment rather than usage retrieval. It specifies the exact return values (LOW, MODERATE, HIGH) and includes actionable advice, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 ('close to being rate limited') and suggests when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools. It provides clear context for usage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like get_session_usage or get_weekly_limits.

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