acedatacloud_get_public_usage_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that ladders are service-specific, that substitution from the generic catalog is invalid, and that the caller should fail closed if the public service detail cannot be read. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but the data-integrity and failure-mode guidance is substantive.

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?

The purpose and its distinguishing constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds a distinct constraint (what the pricing reader lacks, ladder non-portability, fail-closed). Slightly fragmented by line breaks but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers scope, the substitution hazard, and the failure behavior. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete, missing only peripheral details like error surface or caching.

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 the schema already defines 'service' as a UUID or exact alias, so the description's parameter-level contribution is limited to the implication that service selection determines which ladder is returned. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get one service's public Usage packages') and scopes it to Credit-to-USD pricing, then explicitly contrasts it with the pricing reader, which returns cost rules but not package amount/price pairs. An agent can distinguish this from get_pricing and list_model_catalog without opening a schema.

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?

It identifies the alternative source (the pricing reader) and the condition that selects this tool instead — needing package amount/price pairs — and warns against substituting the generic model catalog ladder. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use rubric, but the routing context is clear.

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