org_api_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and mentions default behavior for omitted parameters. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits on the tool itself, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely concise: a single-line summary with a [READ] tag and a brief, structured Args block. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description outlines return content ('response-code counts, 429 rate-limits') but could better specify the output format or potential error states. Still, it covers the key usage context.

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 description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter's purpose and default behavior (e.g., 'omit to use the target's default org'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 tool as a READ operation for 'Org API-request usage overview' and specifies it covers 'response-code counts, 429 rate-limits'. This sets it apart from sibling tools like org_list or org_licensing.

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 '[READ]' tag signals safe usage without side effects. The description implies context for when to use (when needing API request usage data) but does not explicitly state when not to use or what alternatives exist. It is clear enough given the sibling list.

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