Check API quota

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only 'check' and specifies the exact information returned, including reset date. It does not explicitly state that the call does not consume quota or describe error/authentication behavior, but for a no-parameter status endpoint the description is reasonably transparent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('Check your API key's tier'), then enumerates the return values clearly. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter quota tool, the description covers what it does and what it returns, and the sibling list makes the distinction from data tools clear. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not state when to check quota or whether the operation is free of quota impact, but these are minor gaps for this tool shape.

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 the schema reflects that with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed by focusing entirely on what the call reports. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the exact resource (API quota) and the concrete data points returned: tier, monthly allowance, requests used, and reset date. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-fetching tools, all of which are about football content rather than account/API 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 intended use is implied: call this tool to inspect API quota and usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as authentication, and no statement about whether it should be called before other operations. The context makes the distinction obvious but the description does not state it.

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