get-recrawl-quota

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the daily-quota framing ('left today'), which is useful but modest. It says nothing about quota reset semantics, units, or what happens when the quota is exhausted, so it does not go much beyond the structured fields.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by routing exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition provides enough to invoke correctly. The only minor gap is that the return value's shape (remaining count vs. a quota object) is only hinted at by 'how many recrawl requests are left today'.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description contributes no additional meaning about host_id (e.g. where to obtain it or whether it differs from a URL). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recrawl quota for a host') and immediately anchors it to a user intent ('how many recrawl requests are left today'). It also names the two nearest siblings it must not be confused with, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (user asks about remaining recrawl requests) plus two explicit when-not clauses with named alternatives (add-recrawl-url for sending a URL, get-recrawl-queue for queued tasks). This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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