tosea_get_quota_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Inspect quota status', which implies read-only but does not explicitly confirm safety, auth requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimal in behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core function. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 status inspection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could be improved by noting what the response contains (e.g., quota usage and limits) or clarifying that no modification occurs.

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 single optional parameter `feature_key` has no schema description, but the tool description explains its semantics: if provided, inspect quota for that feature; if omitted, inspect all features. This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 inspects quota status, with the ability to target all features or a single feature key. This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools, none of which deal with quota status.

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 context: provide a feature_key for a single feature or omit for all. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, the lack of competing quota tools makes this sufficient. Clear context is provided.

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