Get Message Quota Consumption

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

Since there are no annotations, the description must convey the behavioral nature of the tool. The description implies a read-only operation ('Get the number of messages sent this month') and does not suggest any side effects or mutations. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating, read-only call, nor does it mention potential error conditions or edge cases (e.g., if the monthly quota has been exceeded or if data is unavailable). For a simple getter, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no superfluous words or redundant phrasing. It clearly communicates the primary action and subject without any fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple parameterless getter, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what data is being retrieved. It specifies the resource ('message quota consumption') and the time frame ('this month'). It does not explain the return format, but since there is no output schema, that is not required. The description is adequate for the tool's apparent simplicity, though it could mention the return value type (e.g., an integer count) for additional clarity.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters to document). According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate even without additional parameter descriptions. Since there are no parameters, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is consistent with 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 states a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'message quota consumption', which distinguishes it from the many similar 'get_sent_*' and 'get_statistics_*' tools. It is concise but unambiguous about the subject matter, though it could benefit from specifying exactly what 'quota consumption' refers to (e.g., count of messages sent toward the monthly limit).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also retrieve message statistics or delivery counts. There is no mention of intended use cases or when alternatives like get_sent_reply_count or get_message_deliveries would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer the tool's purpose solely from the name and minimal description.

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