get_provider_quota

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. It only states the function. The schema descriptions for parameters offer some context, but the tool description itself lacks transparency.

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 short sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and supported providers. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could benefit from a bit more detail about the return structure without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format or structure, but it does not. The tool is simple with few parameters, and the schema provides good parameter detail. However, the lack of return information and behavioral context makes it only minimally complete for complex usage.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of their semantics. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; the supported providers list is redundant. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 states the tool returns detailed quota information for a single provider and lists supported providers, which clearly indicates the tool's purpose and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_quota_summary, check_quota_health) by focusing on per-provider detail, but the verb 'returns' is generic and could be more specific.

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 for getting detailed quota of a single provider, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quota_summary or check_quota_health. No when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative references are provided.

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