Квота API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the important detail that data comes from the Units header and lists the exact fields returned. This goes beyond the annotations by revealing the data source, which is non-obvious. 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 states the action, the resource, the source, and the purpose. No wasteful words; every part earns its place. The purpose clause is placed at the end but still concise. Excellent efficiency.

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 tool, the description is complete: it specifies the return fields (spent/remaining/limit) and the data source (Units header). No output schema exists, but the description effectively communicates the return content. Some implicit context like authentication state is not mentioned, but it is likely shared across sibling tools. Overall, nothing an agent needs for a basic call is missing.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids irrelevant parameter details. It focuses on the return value instead.

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 it returns today's API points quota (spent/remaining/limit) from the Units header. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_balance, which might be confused with financial balance. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 includes a usage motivation ('to avoid hitting the daily limit') which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_balance. The usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.

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