seerr_get_user_quota

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

The description discloses a read-only operation ('Get'), which aligns with the readOnlyHint: true annotation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as what quota types exist or how the quota is computed. The annotation already covers safety, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no redundant content.

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 simple read-only getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope; the output schema handles return details, so no additional context is required.

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 input schema has one param (user_id) with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'for a specific user', which adds minimal meaning beyond the variable name. It does not clarify the ID format or its relation to Seerr users, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get quotas') and scopes it to 'a specific user'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seerr_get_user and seerr_get_user_requests, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for retrieving user quota information, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other user-related getters such as seerr_get_user or seerr_get_user_watch_data. No alternative comparisons are provided, though the scope is clear.

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