usage_by_product_over_time

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

The description says 'Get', implying a safe read, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which the description neither explains nor reconciles. No behavioral traits (aggregation semantics, bucket boundaries, cost of large ranges) are disclosed, and the text actively conflicts with the annotation profile. Annotation Contradiction.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a three-word sentence cannot carry the semantics of a six-parameter time-series query.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about the response shape, bucket granularity, or how grouping affects rows. For an analytics tool with 17 group_by options, this leaves the agent unable to predict results.

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 67% and the description adds nothing: the meaning of filters, group_by, interval_seconds, and time_zone must be inferred entirely from the schema. The undocumented filters and group_by parameters receive no compensating explanation in the description.

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 'Get Workspace Usage' only partially restates the tool name and never mentions the two defining dimensions: 'by product' and 'over time'. An agent cannot tell from the text that this is a time-bucketed, groupable analytics query rather than a simple total.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling usage_characters, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the time range or grouping needs. The agent is left to guess.

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