Get account capacity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns 'ceilings', which are static limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, but doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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, each serving a purpose: first states the function, second provides usage guidance. No redundant or irrelevant information. Efficient 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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use cases. It mentions key concepts like per-class and per-direction. While it could add details about scope or format, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (CPS and channel capacity), which is not in the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description satisfies that.

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 clearly states it retrieves 'per-class × per-direction CPS and channel capacity ceilings'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'account capacity' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like acct_get_utilization by focusing on capacity ceilings.

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 provides usage scenarios: 'Use when planning traffic loads or diagnosing capacity-related call rejections.' This gives clear context, though it doesn't mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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