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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the auth requirement ('registered-user JWT') and what the payload contains (summary plus daily timeline), which is real added context. It omits read-only guarantees, rate limiting, and any pagination or granularity caveats.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the payload description is front-loaded ahead of the auth prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about the shape of the 'summary' and 'daily timeline' (granularity, per-day fields). The auth prerequisite is covered, so the remaining gap is return-value detail.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with 'days' fully documented (1..365, default 30), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a nuance by calling the token a 'registered-user JWT', though that slightly diverges from the schema's 'Gateway JWT' wording without explaining the difference.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Token/tool-call usage summary and daily timeline for the current tenant'. The verb is implicit (retrieve/report) but the resource is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like actora_tenant_plans. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for the current tenant' establishes scope, and the resource name suggests you call it to inspect consumption. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative named (e.g. actora_tenant_plans for plan/quota details).

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