get_content_submission_quota

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action ('Get information') without stating that it is read-only, idempotent, or requires specific authentication/permissions. It does not mention any side effects or rate limits, which is a gap for a getter.

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 extremely concise, with a clear purpose statement and well-organized Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every line is functional and there is no filler, earning high marks for structure and economy.

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 has a single parameter and an output schema that presumably defines ContentSubmissionQuota, so return structure is covered. However, the description does not clarify the relationship to get_url_submission_quota or the exact meaning of 'content submission', leaving a potential ambiguity for an agent selecting among similar quota tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the site_url parameter. It provides only 'The URL of the site' – a generic phrase that doesn't clarify format (e.g., full URL vs. domain), required scheme, or whether the site must already be verified. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('content submission quota and usage'). It distinguishes from the sibling get_url_submission_quota by naming the resource type, but it doesn't explicitly contrast the two, so an agent might wonder how they differ.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the very similar get_url_submission_quota. There is no mention of typical invocation context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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