get-llm-limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: the exact return fields, the 0..100 range of percent_left, and the non-obvious normalization rule that expired/null expires_at becomes percent_left=100 with null timestamps. It omits that the call is read-only and any auth requirements, but the edge-case contract is genuinely valuable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the return contract, then the plan field. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return shape — and it does, covering both window objects and the subscription plan. It is nearly complete for a zero-param getter; only the safety profile (read-only, no side effects) is left unstated.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter guidance is 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Return the current LLM usage limits') and scopes it to 6h and 7d windows, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like get-balance and get-tokens-history. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get-balance, get-tokens-history, or get-llm-reset-price, all of which sound adjacent. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this reports quota consumption rather than remaining balance or pricing.

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