acedatacloud_get_proxy_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'caller-authorized' which implies permission scoping, but provides no detail on what happens if unauthorized or what the record contains. It is not contradictory, but it is minimal.

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?

A single, short sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a narrowly scoped getter, though it misses an opportunity to mention a sibling list tool.

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 tool is a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain the 'caller-authorized' scope or how this relates to usage records, but it's sufficient for a straightforward retrieval.

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 one parameter, usage_id, described as 'Proxy usage UUID.' The description adds no detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies. It could have clarified how to obtain this UUID (e.g., via list_proxy_usage), but doesn't.

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 states 'Get one caller-authorized proxy usage record,' which names a specific resource (proxy usage record) and action (get). It is clear but does not distinguish why 'proxy usage' differs from the sibling tools 'get_usage' or 'list_proxy_usage'; without further detail, the distinction is inferred from the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'get_usage', 'list_proxy_usage', or 'export_usage'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authorization) or how it relates to list_proxy_usage.

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