get_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (limits, usage, tier) and references the tier system, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, caching, or error scenarios. Given that annotations carry the core safety burden, the description provides moderate added value.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (resource limits) and lists the specific components. It includes the tier system reference and dashboard comparison without unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already cover safety, the description is fully adequate for an agent to decide to call it and understand what it returns. It mentions all key data categories (limits, usage, tier) and provides a reference to the dashboard page, making the tool's function clear in isolation.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties). The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It appropriately focuses on the return data instead.

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 returns the account's resource limits (VPS count, vCPU, RAM, disk, IP caps), current usage against each, and the current tier. It specifies exact resource categories and references the tier system, making it distinct from siblings like get_usage_billing or get_bandwidth_overview. The verb 'get' combined with the resource scope leaves no ambiguity about what is retrieved.

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 implies usage context by stating it shows 'exactly what the dashboard's own Tier page shows' and lists specific resource metrics. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, the resource-focused content clearly differentiates it from billing or bandwidth tools. The context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus siblings.

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