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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'No charge' behavior and the 20-transaction limit, which are valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free status, but 'Return' and 'No charge' strongly imply a safe query.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and adds the useful 'No charge' note without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what is returned: balance, pricing, and 20 recent transactions. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but the core call behavior is clear and complete enough for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist; the input schema is already complete with an empty properties object.

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 ('Return') and a distinct resource: the partner's balance, pricing, and recent transactions. This is unambiguous and differentiates get_usage from the contractor-related sibling 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 clear context for when the tool would be appropriate: when a partner's current balance, pricing, or recent transactions are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but sibling tools are clearly unrelated in purpose.

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