obtener_estadisticas_uso

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (statistics and quota) but does not explicitly state it is safe or describe side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth (e.g., authentication needs, exact output structure).

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?

Two sentences: first states core function, second adds practical use case. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and perfectly concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the returned statistics include. It only mentions 'usage statistics' and 'daily quota' vaguely. More detail (e.g., fields like requests limit, used, reset time) would improve completeness. Given no sophistication in schema/annotations, this is a gap.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params), so schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is fine as there are none.

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 clearly states the tool obtains API usage statistics and daily quota status. The verb 'obtiene' and specific resources 'estadísticas de uso' and 'cuota diaria' exactly match the tool name. It is distinct from siblings, which focus on procurement tasks.

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 it is useful for monitoring remaining requests, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but since no sibling overlaps, this is acceptable.

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