Get Quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: that reads are free of charge, and what the response contains (plan, used, remaining). It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and return contents front-loaded; the free-read note follows as a useful but subordinate detail. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by naming what comes back (plan, conversions used, remaining). For a zero-parameter, read-only tool this is essentially sufficient, though it leaves open whether the quota is scoped per key or per account and whether results are cached.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension is well-served by the schema alone and the description has nothing extra to explain. No parameter documentation is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the plan of the conv2pdf API key and how many conversions it has used and may still use'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from all conversion-oriented siblings. An agent can tell it apart from merge_pdfs or compress_pdf without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is a pre-flight check before spending conversions, but the description never says when to call it or in what order relative to conversion tools. Since no sibling overlaps with quota retrieval, the missing 'when' is a modest gap rather than a confusion risk.

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