get_quota

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey a read-only, non-mutating check and clarifies the month-bound quota scope. However, it does not disclose the exact response shape, whether it returns remaining, used, or total counts, or any auth/rate-limit caveats.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and the concrete output with no filler. The action verb and resource appear immediately, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 quota checker, the description provides a clear mental model: monthly notification allowance and usage. It does not explain output formatting or exactly how 'usage' is counted, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and lack of required inputs.

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, so the schema leaves nothing to interpret. The description still adds useful meaning by explaining that 'quota and usage' means the number of notifications sendable this month, which is sufficient for a no-input 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 clearly identifies the resource ('notification quota and usage'), then explains the concrete value it returns ('how many notifications you can send this month'). This distinguishes it naturally from siblings like send_notification and get_history.

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 implies the tool should be used to check quota before sending notifications, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced for comparison, so usage context is only implied.

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