Check Aggregate Constraints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that this is a hypothetical evaluation ('would violate'), implying a pre-check that does not consume access, but it says nothing about the response shape or what to do on violation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though for a 9-parameter tool this brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, 9 undocumented parameters, and only a one-line description, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot know what inputs mean, what a violation result looks like, or how the limits interact.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters (6 required), and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Fields like windowStartMs, burstLimit, and maxAccessesPerWindow are left entirely for the agent to guess, which is a serious gap for a constraint-checking tool.

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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('aggregate rate limits' on data access), making the intent clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many similar check_* siblings (check_usage_permitted, check_combination_permitted, check_purpose_permitted), so an agent must infer which check applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the numerous check_* siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is a pre-access gate, but nothing in the text confirms that.

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