panelica_license_get_v1_license_quotas_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: required scope license:read, explicit "Read-only." confirmation, and the 404-on-missing-resource behavior. This is meaningful operational guidance.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then error behavior, then endpoint, category, required scopes, and read-only status. There is no filler and every line earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only GET with strong annotations, the description covers the HTTP method, path, required scope, and 404 behavior. It does not state the exact response body shape, but no output schema is provided; the phrase "quota limit" makes the return intent reasonably clear. This is complete enough for a simple quota lookup.

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 resource parameter is already well-described with examples like max_domains and max_databases. The description only restates the idea of a specific resource and shows the path placeholder, adding little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: "Check quota limit for a specific resource." It also clarifies the scope by saying "specific resource," distinguishing it from list-style sibling tools like panelica_license_get_v1_license_quotas. The 404 behavior and endpoint path reinforce what this tool does.

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 makes it clear this is for checking a single resource's quota, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the "specific resource" framing gives an agent enough context to select it over broader quota or resource-usage tools.

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