get_url_submission_quota

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what the output format is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like parameter context.

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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks completeness in guiding usage and behavior, making it just viable but with clear gaps.

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 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'site_url' undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's general purpose, failing to explain what 'site_url' should be (e.g., a domain, full URL) or how it affects quota retrieval, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Get information about') and the resource ('URL submission quota and usage'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content_submission_quota' or 'submit_url', which handle related but distinct operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a valid site URL, or compare it to siblings like 'get_content_submission_quota' for content quotas or 'submit_url' for actual submissions, leaving usage context unclear.

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