ig_publishing_limit

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context by explaining the number is a rolling 24-hour limit imposed by the API, but says nothing about rate-limit headers, refresh cadence, or what the returned value looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key noun ('Cuota de publicaciones') front-loaded and the time window and API-limit caveat in parentheses; nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical slightly compresses what could be clearer phrasing.

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 no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the call returns (used publishing quota over 24h) and its source (API limit). Little more is needed, though noting the quota reset behavior would fully close the loop.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional 'account' parameter whose description already explains the default active account. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource — the publishing quota consumed in the last 24 hours — and clarifies it reflects the API limit, so an agent can distinguish it from analytics or insight siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and no sibling (e.g., ig_analytics, ig_account_insights) is named, so full differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is referenced, even though ig_analytics and ig_account_insights cover adjacent data. The agent must infer that this specific quota check is separate from broader insight tools.

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