get_quota

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context that it returns the 'complete raw definition including its logic and actions', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., potential large response size, permission requirements).

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core action and output scope.

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 read-only tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the return value ('complete raw definition, logic, and actions'). This helps the agent understand the response structure, though more detail could be beneficial.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter-level details beyond 'quota's definition, logic, and actions', which is high-level. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('quota's complete raw Qualtrics definition'), and mentions including logic and actions, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_quotas, update_quota, etc.

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 implies it's for retrieving the full definition of a specific quota, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_quotas for summaries, update_quota for modifications), nor does it provide any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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