get_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the critical non-obvious trait that the quota never resets and that exhaustion causes total failure of network tools until an operator restarts the server, plus its own zero-cost/instant profile. It omits any statement about permissions or snapshot timing, but the key operational risk is disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The most consequential fact, that quota is non-renewing and failure is total, is front-loaded right after the core purpose, and the cost note closes it out.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free status tool with a documented return shape, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it and to interpret the urgency of 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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns session quota spent/remaining plus per-host rate limit state. That is clearly distinct from every sibling, which performs an actual network lookup, so an agent can tell immediately that this is the status/diagnostic tool rather than a network operation.

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?

Implicit usage is well conveyed: calling it is free, quota-free and instant, which tells the agent to check it before burning quota, and the warning that exhausted quota breaks all network tools implies using it when network calls start failing. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming alternatives.

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