get_daily_stats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what occurs if quotas are exceeded. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 with no wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, scope, fields) is included efficiently.

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, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description provides sufficient context (what data is returned and the time period). It could specify the data format or structure, but is adequate for basic usage.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description is irrelevant to parameter semantics due to zero parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'today's quota usage', and the scope 'for all action types (used / limit / zone)'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings, none of which mention quota or usage stats.

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 usage for checking current quota usage without specifying when to use alternatives. Given the focused purpose and no parameters, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, though explicit when-not-to-use guidance is absent.

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