get_content_submission_quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral details for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear language. No extraneous words or redundant information are present, making it highly concise and well-structured for its limited content.

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 an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. For a read-only tool with output schema support, it's adequate but leaves gaps in understanding when and how to use it 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher. The description doesn't explain what 'site_url' represents or its format, but the simplicity of a single required parameter mitigates the lack of detail, resulting in an adequate but minimal score.

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 the tool's purpose as retrieving 'content submission quota information', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'content submission quota information', but doesn't distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_url_submission_quota' or explain what 'content' versus 'url' submission means. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_url_submission_quota' or explain the difference between content and URL submission quotas. There's no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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