llm_quota_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool monitors three subscriptions and returns formatted quota status with usage percentages and route recommendations. It does not mention any side effects or authorization needs, but it provides sufficient behavioral context for a read-only status tool.

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 three paragraphs, starting with a clear title-like sentence. It is reasonably concise, though the QUOTA_BALANCED profile explanation could be shortened. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose.

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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides adequate context: it explains the providers, the return value format, and usage context. It is complete for a simple status-checking 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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning non-existent parameters.

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's purpose: 'Show quota balance across Claude, Gemini CLI, and Codex subscriptions.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('quota balance'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'llm_check_usage' by focusing on routing decisions across three providers.

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 mentions the QUOTA_BALANCED profile uses this data for routing decisions, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity compared to similar tools.

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