get_quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the return values (remaining quota in seconds and credits) and explains the billing conversion (1 credit per 60 seconds). This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose, usage timing, and return format with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: the purpose, when to call it, and what the response means. The billing explanation adds essential domain context.

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 input schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining the output semantics (seconds and credits), which is the only meaningful parameter-related context needed.

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 identifies the tool as checking remaining HeyGen API credits, using the specific verb 'Check' and naming the resource ('remaining HeyGen API credits'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_video and list_videos by focusing on quota specifically.

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 explicitly says 'before generating video', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context is sufficient given that no sibling tool serves a similar quota-checking purpose.

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