Check the monthly audit URL quota

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

Annotations cover readOnly and openWorld. The description adds that this reflects the same quota create_audit checks, which is meaningful context for an agent reasoning about audit limits. It does not describe rate limits or auth constraints, so it stops short of 5.

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 what is returned, followed by the projectId decision rule. No waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. For a single-optional-parameter, read-only quota tool, the description covers purpose, the parameter decision, and the create_audit relationship. It could note whether the quota is per plan or per key, but is otherwise complete.

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 schema already documents projectId thoroughly (including a pointer to get_active_project). The description paraphrases the same semantics, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (reads/reports) and resource (monthly audit URL quota) with concrete output: total, used, and remaining. It also frames the relationship to create_audit, making it distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Explicitly describes when to pass projectId (to read the quota billed to a project's workspace) versus omitting it (for the API key holder's own plan). Ties the parameter to a concrete decision, leaving little inference.

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