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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are aggregated per line with named fields and names the underlying GET endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents or about any rate/latency characteristics.

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 short sentences, front-loading the resource and scope, followed by the endpoint reference. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does useful work by outlining the fields returned per line (product, variable, quantity, unit). Pagination and period formatting are handled by the schema. Minor gaps remain, such as whether values are monetary or units of measure and whether totals are included.

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% and each parameter (limit, offset, period) is fully documented in the schema, including the YYYY-MM pattern and next_offset usage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (aggregated usage report for the organization over one month) and enumerates the returned line fields (product, variable, quantity, unit), plus the backing endpoint. It is clearly distinct from siblings like exoscale_get_quota or exoscale_get_organization, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 says what the report covers but gives no guidance on when to call it versus alternatives (e.g. quota vs usage report) and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the resource name.

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