rate_limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns usage and mentions the limit, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly disclose that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it describe the response fields (e.g., points used, remaining, reset time).

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 clear sentence with useful information, but the trailing 'Example variables: {}' is unnecessary noise that adds no value. It is mostly concise but not perfectly clean, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The tool is simple (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description explains the core purpose. However, it fails to describe what the returned 'usage' actually contains (e.g., current points, limit, quota) or how to interpret the result, which is a notable gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter (customer_slug), with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and resource ('current GreyMatter API rate-limit usage'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also adds useful context about the 5000 points/hour limit, and none of the sibling tools relate to rate limiting, so it is distinct.

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 this is a read-only monitoring tool for checking API quota, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'before making bulk calls') or contrast it with any alternatives. There are no direct siblings, so explicit exclusion is not needed, but the guidance is only implicit.

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