get_rate_limit_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the budget is 1440/day and shared by all tools. This helps the agent understand that calls to other tools consume this budget. No contradictions with annotations.

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 that conveys the purpose and the key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 status tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is being measured and the relevant budget, which is all an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is complete by default.

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 ('Show') and resource ('how many Marvin API calls have been made today'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also includes the daily budget context, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_info or test_connection.

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 provides clear context: this is the tool for checking today's API call usage against the 1440/day budget. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose is evident and the shared-budget note helps the agent understand when to consult it.

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