get_rate_limit_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context about the 1440/day budget and that it is shared by all tools, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the scope of the read operation.

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 short but contains redundancy: the second sentence essentially repeats the first, adding only 'shared by all tools' as new information. It could be condensed into one sentence without losing clarity, so it is not as crisp as it could be.

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 tool with an existing output schema and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose and key detail of the shared daily budget. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists, and there are no other complex aspects requiring elaboration.

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 description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning. The schema description coverage is 100%, and with no params, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 shows today's Marvin API calls against the 1440/day budget. It identifies a specific resource and verb, and it is distinct from all sibling tools, as no other tool covers rate limit 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 the tool is for checking current API usage against a shared daily budget, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There are no direct exclusions, but the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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