get_rate_limit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that a minimal API request is spent by default, explains the reset time (midnight NZ time), and discloses that the burst limit is not reported in headers. This goes beyond basic purpose and informs the agent of side effects and limitations.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose, then details refresh behavior and limitations. Every sentence adds essential information; there is no filler or repetition. It is concise yet complete.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (remaining quota values) and covers the main operational details: refresh options, default behavior, reset time, and the absence of burst-limit info. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 'refresh' is fully covered by the schema (100% coverage) with enum values and descriptions. The tool description adds value by clarifying the default ('api'), the meaning of 'none' (returns last observed without spending a request), and the distinction between API and feed quotas. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 reports remaining daily quota from X-RateLimit-* headers, distinguishing between JSON API key and feed key. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools that handle legislation search/retrieval, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explains the default behavior (spends one minimal request) and the refresh parameter options, including the 'none' behavior for returning cached values. It also notes the burst limit is not reported, setting expectations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, siblings are unrelated, so this is sufficient guidance for when to use the tool.

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