infomaniak_short_urls_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the specific output content (consumption and limit), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as account-level scope implications or units. This is adequate for a simple read operation with annotations present.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses no unnecessary words. It conveys the exact purpose in under 15 words, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an existing output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. Minor gap: it does not mention that this is a prerequisite check before creating short URLs, but this is implicit and not essential for a read-only quota endpoint.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly focuses on the return value instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') paired with a precise resource ('current consumption and limit of your account's short-URL quota'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like infomaniak_list_short_urls (lists URLs) and infomaniak_create_short_url (creates URLs).

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 implies the tool is for checking quota status before creating short URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context signals from sibling tools provide some differentiation, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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