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

Beyond the annotations' read-only, non-destructive profile, the description discloses the trailing time window, operation-level aggregation, and org-admin requirement. These are useful behavioral and access details for a simple reporting tool.

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 single compact sentence front-loads the metric, aggregation, and time window, then adds the admin restriction without unnecessary wording. Every clause contributes actionable information.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this supplies nearly enough context to select and invoke it correctly. Missing parameter defaults and a brief distinction from get_skill_usage keep it from being fully complete.

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 usefully connects days to the N-day lookback and explains who may use scope=org. However, it does not state the default scope, the default or allowed range for days, or explicitly describe scope=self, which matters because neither parameter is required.

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 identifies the resource and result: Dactic AI token usage, grouped by operation, over a trailing N-day period. It also distinguishes personal and organization scopes, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from the sibling get_skill_usage.

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 statement that scope=org is for org admins gives concrete guidance on selecting that scope and signals an authorization restriction. There is no explicit comparison with alternatives such as get_skill_usage, but the token-usage context is otherwise clear.

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