Check API Usage & Quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations: the 'never consumes quota' property (a strong side-effect disclosure), the 'always describes calling key, never another account' scoping constraint, and the confirmation-of-limit intent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping constraint first, then usage triggers. Efficient and well organized. Minor deduction only because the second sentence slightly nests multiple clauses (reset-time confirmation + upgrade suggestion) that could be streamlined.

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-arg, fully-annotated, output-schema-bearing tool, the description is remarkably complete: it covers return content (usage, quota, rate limits, overage), scope, invocation triggers, and a distinctive non-quota-consuming behavior. Loses one point only for not explicitly naming the sibling-contrast, though the different domain of siblings makes that unnecessary.

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?

Zero parameters — the schema is an empty object. The description explicitly addresses this: 'Takes no arguments — it always describes the calling key.' This preemptively eliminates any agent confusion about parameterization, which is the only semantically relevant point for a no-arg tool.

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?

Specific verb 'Report' plus clearly enumerated content (plan, usage, quota, reset times, rate limit, overage) bound to 'the DoorProfit API key authenticating this session.' Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that query crime/neighborhood/offender data — a very different purpose domain.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers: when the user asks how many calls remain, and after any other tool returns QUOTA_EXCEEDED or DAILY_LIMIT_EXCEEDED to confirm limits before suggesting an upgrade. Sets clear expectations about the scope (never another account) and adds a distinct proof-point: the only tool that never consumes quota.

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