decoration_quota_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a read operation with no side effects, explicitly states the returned fields (used, limit, remaining, tier, current month), and explains tier differences. It lacks mention of authentication or rate limits, but is otherwise transparent.

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 concise with three sentences: first sets purpose, second explains tiers, third lists returns. No fluff, front-loaded with the key verb 'check' and resource 'decoration quota'.

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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the tier logic. It covers all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke and 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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by explaining the tier logic and what the return fields represent, going beyond the schema which would only show an empty object.

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 tool checks decoration quota usage 'this month', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'apply_decoration' or 'list_decorations'. It explicitly mentions the resource (decorations) and the action (check quota), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by mentioning tier limits and return fields, suggesting it should be used before applying decorations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, such as 'decoration_info', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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