linode_get_account_limits

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the tool composes data from multiple sources (API rate limits, Object Storage quotas, network transfer pool), disclosing the behavior that no single API endpoint exists. This provides useful context for the agent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail. Highly efficient.

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?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it comprises. It fully addresses the complexity of a composite summary tool, making it complete for agent understanding.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since no parameters exist.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Summarize the account limits that apply.' It also details the specific components it composes (API rate limits, Object Storage quotas, network transfer pool), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like linode_get_account or linode_list_* which retrieve other types of data.

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 implicitly suggests usage when account limits are needed, noting that Linode does not expose a single endpoint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as linode_list_object_storage_quotas or linode_get_account_transfer, and provides no 'when not to use' advice.

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