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

The description adds substantial semantics beyond the read-only annotations: calls are grouped by the verified human behind each agent, storage is shared Space cost, user pages do not change Space totals, and direct purchased debits exclude internal-agent transfers already shown in payment history. These are non-obvious behavioral and accounting rules that materially affect interpretation.

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 dense but front-loaded, starting with the primary read purpose before optional modes and accounting caveats. Every sentence carries relevant information, though some sentences are packed with multiple concepts and could be split for readability.

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?

Given seven parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the main invocation modes and important accounting caveats. It falls short only on details like default behavior of spaces_limit=0 and the format of before_period, which an agent would need to invoke the optional modes correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by grouping each optional parameter with its purpose: history_limit/before_period for up to thirteen recorded weeks, spaces_limit/spaces_cursor for owned Spaces, users_limit/users_cursor with space_id for inspecting one owned space. It still omits formats such as the expected before_period value and cursor semantics, so it does not fully cover parameter behavior.

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 that it reads usage, included coverage, purchased Credits, category totals, owned Spaces, and per-space user data. The verb and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent financial/account tools such as hive_wallet or private_agent_budget.

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 implicitly indicates when to use optional modes by naming history_limit, spaces_limit, and space_id, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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