get_account_quota

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals a notable side effect: 'If no account is connected yet, the MCP server will launch the CyberLens browser flow automatically before checking quota.' It also lists the return values. It doesn't mention failure modes or whether the browser flow is interactive, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clean bulleted return list, then a usage note and a behavior note. Every sentence contributes value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the return data, the usage context, and the only side effect (browser flow on unauthenticated calls). An agent has everything necessary to decide to call it and understand what to expect.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema carries no burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the returned quota data includes, which helps an agent interpret the result even though the output schema is absent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get your CyberLens account quota and remaining cloud scans.' It then enumerates exactly what is returned (plan name, scan usage, limits, remaining). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like scan_website or get_scan_results, which perform different actions.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to confirm your account is connected and check how many cloud scans remain.' It also explains the automatic browser flow if no account is connected. However, it does not directly compare alternatives or say when NOT to use it, leaving some room for the agent to infer routing relative to siblings like connect_account.

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