Rate-limit status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by noting it returns 'most recently observed' values, grouped by domain, and across all processes in the account namespace. No contradictions.

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: first defines what the tool returns, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous text; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains the return values (rate-limit headers and grouping). It covers the key behavioral aspects needed for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

No parameters in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100% for zero params. The description need not elaborate on parameters, and thus it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description clearly states it returns rate-limit headers (X-RateLimit-Limit, X-RateLimit-Remaining, X-RateLimit-Reset) grouped by API domain, across processes. Verb 'Returns' and resource are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on autoload, calltracking, etc.

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?

Explicitly states usefulness for diagnosing throttling and mentions the per-minute limit enforcement by Avito. While it doesn't specify when not to use it or list alternatives, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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