cloud_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — that unavailable values come back as null — which is not in the structured data, though it says nothing about return shape, units, or refresh cadence.

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?

It is short, but under-specification rather than conciseness. It is also written in Spanish while the tool name and sibling ecosystem are English, which adds friction without adding information.

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 tool with one required, undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter and the quota semantics. Instead it only notes null-return behavior, leaving the agent unable to call the tool 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 single required parameter "volume" has no schema description (0% coverage) and is never mentioned in the description. Nothing indicates what a volume identifier is, its format, or what values are valid, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 essentially the noun "Cuota", which restates the tool name cloud_quota without naming a verb, a resource domain, or a scope. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it retrieves quota, sets quota, or checks quota 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as o2_quota, o2_stat, or cloud_stat. The only clause addresses return values, not usage, so the agent must infer the context entirely.

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