webmaster_get_pro_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates that, and adds no new behavioral context such as rate limits or quota-reset semantics.

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?

Three tight clauses: purpose, endpoint, and the sequencing hint. Every element earns its place and the gating instruction is front-loaded after the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, endpoint, and when to call it; only host_id semantics remain unaddressed.

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 0% for the single `host_id` parameter, so the description is expected to compensate. It only implies host scoping via 'for a host' and adds no format or source-of-value detail for host_id.

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 names the resource (enhanced SERP-query export quotas for a host) and the concrete endpoint (GET …/pro/limits), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is clear but stops short of a crisp verb+resource phrasing that would fully distinguish it from the nearby pro-export siblings.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: check this before calling `webmaster_start_pro_export`, naming the sibling it gates. There is no when-not guidance, but the pre-check context is clear and actionable.

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