get_rate_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the shared 'post' window between post_response and create_discussion, the distinction from per-facilitator/per-IP caps, and the guarantee that calling this never consumes a window. It doesn't describe the exact response format, but with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description adds meaningful context beyond the 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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the shared-window detail, the scope distinction, and the non-consuming guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, the scope of the limits, the shared window, and the non-consuming behavior. The only minor gap is not describing the exact response shape, but that's a small omission for a simple status-check tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the token parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: viewing rate-limit state, including per-action usage, caps, and reset times. It uses a specific verb ('See') and resource ('rate-limit state'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the token-path scope and the shared 'post' window.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: it notes that per-facilitator and per-IP caps apply to raw anonymous REST only, while these per-token limits are the only ones on the token path. It also states that calling it never consumes a window, which is a key usage consideration.

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