How much you may do without a person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the 24-hour period, the human-approval threshold, and the fact that verified reports raise the headroom. This helps the agent understand side effects and 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 appropriately short for a simple query tool, front-loading the core meaning in the first sentence. Both sentences contribute value, though the phrasing is slightly dense and could be clearer.

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 read-only tool with one documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is counted, the time window, remaining capacity, and influencing factors. Missing error-case details are not critical at this complexity.

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 parameter `action` is already fully documented at 100% schema coverage with an example. The description reinforces that the headroom applies to 'actions of this kind' but adds no new format, syntax, or value constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 what the tool does: it reports how many actions of a given kind may be performed in a 24-hour window, how many remain, and what affects that limit. It is a specific query about headroom, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like brydge_supervise, brydge_report_outcome, or brydge_get_finding. The quota framing implies it should be checked before acting, but that is left to inference rather than stated.

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