API Usage

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the exact quota information provided (tier, daily limit, used today, remaining count). This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists expected outputs. It contains no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no parameters and a read-only annotation, the description provides the key information an agent needs: what the tool checks and what metrics it returns. It is appropriately complete for a simple quota-checking tool, even without an output schema.

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 description does not need to clarify parameter semantics. The description's focus on the return metrics directly addresses what the agent will receive, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource (SEO Radar API quota) and the specific metrics returned (tier, daily limit, used today, remaining count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit or add_monitored_url, which focus on audits and URL monitoring.

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 use whenever you need to monitor API quota, and the tool is clearly distinct from siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it does not reach the highest bar for usage guidance.

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