swiss_ip_get_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds value by stating it returns a JSON string with quota details (used and remaining volume) and explains the monthly quota behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise: one sentence for the main action, a use_case tag, an explanatory note, and return type. Every sentence adds value. Slightly longer due to the tag, but still efficient.

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 parameterless tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage context, and output details. No gaps remain.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it checks the remaining data transfer quota of the IGE Swissreg API, using a specific verb ('Prüft') and resource. It is distinguished from sibling tools (search tools) by focusing on quota monitoring rather than patent/trademark searches.

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?

Includes a <use_case> tag explicitly indicating when to use it: 'Betriebsueberwachung: verbleibendes API-Kontingent pruefen.' Also explains the monthly quota and monitoring context. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but given sibling tools are all search tools, the usage context is clear.

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