roasr_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing operational behavior: Daily budget enforcement, the report service's lack of unit usage reporting, and the queue limit. This goes beyond a simple list of returned fields, giving the agent actionable context. It could mention return format but is not essential.

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 two sentences: first lists what is included, second gives a clear call-to-action with rationale. Every word earns its place, and the key operational warning is placed prominently.

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 simple zero-parameter nature, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's role, its contents, and crucial context for heavy report pulls. Some may expect a description of the output format, but that is not required and would only add length.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not waste space on parameter details.

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: it returns subscription plan details, limits, API rate tier, and remaining Yandex Direct daily quota. Although no explicit verb like 'get' is used, the resource is specific and distinct from the listed siblings (e.g., metrics tools, campaign tools), making its function evident.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this before heavy report pulls' and then explains why with concrete constraints (daily unit budget, no unit usage reported by report service, five-report queue limit). This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus relying on other reporting tools.

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