list_quotas

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not add any behavioral details beyond that. It fails to mention pagination behavior (pageSize, skipToken) even though the schema includes these parameters, which could lead to incomplete expectations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place; no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 list tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return content ('complete quota definitions'). It could explicitly mention pagination, but the schema provides enough for an agent to infer.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (surveyId, pageSize, skipToken). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('complete quota definitions for a survey'), and includes details on what is covered (logic, limits, actions, schedules, action options). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quota (single quota) and quota group tools.

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 (e.g., get_quota for a specific quota, or list_quota_groups). It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for use.

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