Weekly application quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-only check via 'Check' and 'Counts', describes the count window ('since Monday'), and names the two data sources plus how they are combined. It omits minor details like timezone handling or output format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and threshold, while the second provides the necessary data-source detail. The structure is front-loaded and every clause 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 zero-parameter, read-only quota tool, the description covers what is being counted, the time window, the threshold, and the source files. It does not describe the return format, which would be helpful, but the absence is acceptable given no output schema is declared.

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 and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description explains the meaningful inputs conceptually by naming the data sources and merge behavior, which is all that is needed here.

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 a specific check operation ('Check Work at a Startup weekly in-app application cap') and gives a concrete threshold (10/week). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that handle authentication, search, submission, and listing.

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 usage context is clear: an agent should call this when it needs to know the current weekly application quota or remaining capacity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but with zero parameters and this narrow purpose, the intent is easy to infer.

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