search_quota

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the check does not consume the quota and returns a reset time plus subscription-period quota. This is more transparency than a bare read-only declaration would provide.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no repetition of schema or annotation content, and the structure flows logically from what the tool returns to when to use it.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return fields (hourly limit, requests used, remaining, reset, subscription quota) and the non-counting behavior. For a simple, zero-parameter tool, this is fully sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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 and an empty schema, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate, and the description handles usage entirely without needing parameter detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and names the 'Synthetic web search quota' resource, clearly distinguishing this from the sibling `search` tool. It also enumerates the exact data returned (limit, used, remaining, reset), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to decide whether you still have search budget before calling `search`.' This directly ties usage to the sibling tool and gives a clear decision-making context. It also notes that checking quota does not count against the limit, which is practical guidance.

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