get_limits

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the server enforces limits even if ignored, that they cannot be bypassed, and that raising limits is not possible through this tool. It does not mention return format or pagination, but the key operational constraints are transparent.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by usage triggers, enforcement behavior, and a pointer to the relevant sibling tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only limits getter with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough context to call it correctly: when to call, what it returns conceptually, and what it cannot do. It doesn't detail the response structure, but that is not required given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter-level explanation is needed. The schema coverage is 100% by default. The description doesn't need to add anything about inputs; it already focuses on the tool's behavior and use case.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('hard spending limits'), and clarifies the scope with concrete limit types (per purchase, daily, weekly, confirmation threshold). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_recovery_guide by stating that limits cannot be raised here.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call before create_purchase when the user mentions 'лимит', 'потолок', or 'сколько можно потратить'. It also tells the agent what not to expect (cannot raise limits) and points to get_recovery_guide as the alternative for changing limits.

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