Threads quota remaining

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals critical behavioral details: it is read-only and costs 0 credits, requires a connected Threads account, and explains that a null value means 'not reported' rather than zero. It also clarifies that 'none left' and 'could not tell' are distinct answers, which is essential for correct interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and quota details, followed by usage instructions and a key nuance (null vs 0). Every sentence adds value: it explains why to check, what the output means, and a potential pitfall. It is dense but not verbose, and the structure helps an agent quickly extract the key facts.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what quotas exist, their limits, how to interpret returned values (null vs 0), when to call it, and prerequisites (Threads connected). Nothing material is missing.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, but it clarifies the output structure (used, total, remaining per quota type) which is relevant to interpreting the result. Since the baseline for 0 params is 4, this is appropriate.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: it reports the brand's Threads quota remaining, enumerating the four quota types (posts, replies, deletions, location searches) with their limits. It clearly distinguishes this from posting or other Threads tools, making it unmistakable what the tool returns.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: check before any bulk operation and when Threads starts refusing requests. It explains why this is important (quota refusal is otherwise indistinguishable from connection/permission issues) and even advises that reconnecting won't fix it. This is actionable, concrete guidance.

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