rate_limit_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure by itself. It only states that rate limiter status is retrieved and gives no detail about what data is returned (e.g., limits, usage, reset windows) or whether authentication is required. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not fleshed out.

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?

Six words, one sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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?

Because there is no output schema or annotations, the description is the only source of runtime expectations. It fails to describe what a rate limiter status report contains, possible status values, or response shape. A little more context would be needed for an agent to confidently interpret the result.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's 'all services' usefully reinforces that no scoping arguments are needed. This matches the 0-parameter baseline.

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 is a crisp verb+object construction: 'Get' + 'rate limiter status for all services.' It clearly names a unique resource—rate limiter status—that is distinct from sibling status tools like auth_status or cache_stats. The scope 'all services' adds useful specificity.

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 phrase 'for all services' implies using this to obtain a service-wide rate limiting snapshot, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related status tools such as auth_status or cache_stats. No sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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