Check API quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool reports against a plan allowance and is intended as a pre-flight check, which is exactly the kind of supplementary context that earns value here. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows immediately, and there is no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple informational tool with a rich output schema, full parameter documentation, and comprehensive annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The timing guidance completes the picture for a quota-check utility.

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 100%, and the single optional parameter (response_format) is fully documented with enum values and descriptions in the schema itself. Per the baseline rule, the description need not repeat parameter details, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Report this month's SecurityTrails API consumption against the plan allowance'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from all 16 siblings, none of which address quota or plan allowance, so an agent can immediately tell this is the quota-check tool.

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 second sentence gives explicit timing guidance ('Call this before a large enumeration to confirm there is remaining quota'), which tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the exclusive purpose clear enough.

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