Get quota usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond that by explaining the channelSlots semantics in detail (pricing, auto-cancelation, effect on channel limits, autoRenews field), which is valuable behavioral/domain context not present in the schema or annotations. It does not disclose any contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the return fields. The detailed channelSlots explanation is dense but earns its place given the complexity of that field. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, the main return categories, the nuanced channelSlots behavior, and the user-intent trigger. Minor omissions like exact response formatting or possible errors are acceptable given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety.

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 zero properties, so parameter semantics are moot. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly implies no arguments are required.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Check current account usage') and enumerates the specific data returned (daily/monthly post counts, scheduled posts, channels, media storage, channelSlots). It is unambiguous about what the tool reports, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'view_quota'.

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 final sentence explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks about plan limits or current usage.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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