api_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that the call is served from local state and consumes no API budget. It does not say whether the result is a snapshot of counters, when the daily/minute windows reset, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, so meaningful gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier (local, daily/minute) up front and the cost qualifier in a parenthetical. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 utility, the description covers what it reports and that it costs no quota, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the shape of the returned budget figures and reset semantics are left unstated, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

"Show local daily/minute request budget usage" names a specific verb (show) and a specific resource (request budget usage), scoped to daily and minute windows. The parenthetical "(no API call)" distinguishes it from every sibling tool, which all fetch remote data, though it never names one of them explicitly.

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 "no API call" note implies the intended context: checking remaining quota without spending quota. However, the description never states when to check it (before batch calls? on rate-limit errors?) or contrasts it with any named sibling, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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