decoration_quota_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: free accounts have a monthly allowance while Pro has no monthly limit, so an agent knows a null or absent limit for Pro users is expected rather than an error, and it enumerates the returned fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, then tier behavior, then return fields - a sensible order. The parenthetical '(the reply says how many are left)' partially duplicates the later 'Returns ... remaining' line, a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reports, the tier-dependent semantics of the limit, and the time window. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret it 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It spends its words usefully on return-value semantics instead of restating an empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource - 'Check your decoration quota' - plus the scope of 'this month', which is unambiguous. It does not name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as usage_summary, check_my_tier, or decoration_info, which could plausibly be confused with it.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (query your decoration allowance before or after applying decorations), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives like usage_summary or check_my_tier. The free-vs-Pro note helps an agent interpret results but not decide whether to call this tool versus another.

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