Gemini quota

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it identifies the data source (agy /usage) and explicitly states the call spends no quota, which is the key safety fact an agent needs before probing it. It also discloses the window structure (weekly and 5-hour) and the multi-day lockout risk, though it says nothing about output format or freshness/timing of the reading.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes content and data source, the second establishes when to call and why it matters. The safety-relevant fact (spends no quota) is embedded early rather than buried.

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?

With no output schema, no parameters, and no annotations, the description must define the return surface itself, and it does enumerate what comes back (remaining quota across two windows, today's bridge runs and tokens). The only soft spot is undefined jargon like "bridge runs," leaving mild uncertainty about what that portion of the response contains.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical about weekly and 5-hour windows correctly signals that both scopes are returned without any caller-side arguments.

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: it shows remaining Gemini quota on Google AI Pro, including weekly and 5-hour windows, plus today's bridge runs and tokens. No sibling tool (gemini_ask, gemini_research, gemini_read, gemini_image, gemini_job) covers quota or usage, so the purpose is unambiguous without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — "Check it before a batch of deep research" — and the consequence of skipping it: a used-up weekly limit can lock Gemini out for days. There is no named alternative because no sibling provides quota data, so the absence of an "instead use X" clause is not a real gap.

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