get_recrawl_quota

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'daily' context and clarifies this is a quota check, which is minor useful context. However, it does not disclose return format, units, or potential errors, but given the annotations, a neutral score is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key concept. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally sized for a simple read-only quota check tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explain the exact output shape, but the description 'remaining daily re-crawl quota' implies a numeric value. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the simplicity of the tool.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions 'for a host' which aligns with host_id, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Format is described in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the remaining daily re-crawl quota for a host. It is specific to the resource (host) and metric (quota), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recrawl_task, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and is phrased as a noun phrase.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., needing the host_id from get_hosts), or exclusions. Context signals show sibling tools exist, but the description offers no differentiation or usage conditions.

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