Check the monthly audit URL quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the quota is calendar-month scoped, it is the same quota enforced by create_audit, and the billing entity changes with projectId.

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, front-loaded with the three returned values, then the parameter branch. The em-dash clause is slightly heavy but every element carries information; nothing is padding.

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-required-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing: the returned values, the scoping behavior, and the sibling relationship are all stated.

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% and the schema's projectId description already explains the workspace-vs-key-holder billing distinction and points at list_projects. The description restates that same idea rather than adding new syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (monthly audit URL quota) with three concrete sub-values (allowed, used, remaining), which is far more precise than the title alone. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_audit by framing itself as the read-side view of the same quota.

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?

Gives an explicit rule for the one branching decision: pass projectId for the project's workspace plan, omit it for the API key holder's own plan. It also situates the tool relative to create_audit, implying it is the way to check the quota before auditing, though it never states that pre-check use case outright.

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