Check Kimi readiness (free)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the tool always reports `rate_limit` as `unavailable`, that this is not a failure, and that the only quota signal is the `kimi_rate_limited` error with `retry_after_ms`. This goes beyond what annotations 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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the purpose and the free/no-model-call nature, second sentence gives when to use it, and the final paragraph gives crucial behavioral caveats. Slightly longer than strictly minimal, but every sentence carries meaningful guidance. A 4 rather than 5 because the last paragraph could be tightened slightly, but it's well-structured.

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 status check with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to call, what to expect, what not to plan around, and how to interpret the only quota signal. There is nothing an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly that 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately explains the output semantics (rate_limit reports unavailable) even though there is an output schema. A 4 is appropriate because the description compensates for the fact that the output schema likely just lists fields and may not explain the always-`unavailable` behavior.

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 the verb 'Check' and the specific scope: installed, authenticated, supported version, and resolved defaults. It also labels it as 'Free — no model call,' which distinguishes it from paid tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling that performs an overlapping check, but the title and description together make the purpose clear.

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?

Explicitly says when to run it: 'before your first paid call in a session to confirm setup, and again whenever a run fails with a setup error.' It also provides a strong 'do not' guidance about spend planning and `rate_limit`, which prevents incorrect use. This is excellent usage guidance.

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