usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope (this session, user key, upstream calls) and the practical purpose (quota monitoring). It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, but the nature of the tool strongly implies it.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended 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?

For a zero-parameter quota-monitoring tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is counted, the scope, and when to use it. It does not specify the exact return format, but '수' (count) already implies a numeric result.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds useful context by clarifying that the count is tied to the user key and session, which gives meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 identifies what the tool reports: the number of upstream calls made with the user key in the current session. It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are about places, festivals, and crowding rather than API usage.

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 an explicit usage context: check this tool when worried about quota. It does not discuss exclusions or alternative tools, but since none of the siblings serve this purpose, the guidance is sufficient.

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