storage_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description earns its keep by disclosing the non-obvious semantics that 'available' can overstate what a commit will accept and that quota is enforced at commit time — a behavioral trait no structured field conveys. It does not discuss refresh cadence or caching, which would have pushed it to a 5.

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, no filler. The inventory of returned values comes first and the quota caveat is placed last as the operative warning. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return field semantics, and its two sentences plus readOnlyHint are sufficient for a zero-argument tool. The only gap is the absence of any pointer to prepare_upload or get_upload_status, which would fully situate it in the transfer workflow.

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 and the baseline applies. No misleading parameter hints are offered.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates exactly what is returned: account quota, used/reserved/available bytes, active uploads, and transfer limits. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only account-level capacity snapshot rather than a per-file or per-upload query like get_upload_status. It stops short of naming siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied. The caveat that available space is advisory and the final commit enforces quota hints that this is a pre-flight check, but the description never says 'call this before prepare_upload' or points to get_upload_status / list_jobs for per-transfer detail. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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