acedatacloud_list_usage_status_codes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and behavioral traits. It only states 'seen by the caller' but doesn't clarify how the perspective parameter affects results, nor does it mention read-only nature, pagination, or rate limits. The ambiguity persists despite schema parameters.

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 description is a single sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. It is extremely concise and wastes no words.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with an output schema and three optional parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of perspective, the meaning of 'distinct' status codes, or how time bounds affect results. No mention of expected output format or interplay with other usage tools.

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 has a clear description (e.g., perspective enum, time bounds). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 states the tool lists distinct HTTP status codes seen by the caller, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling usage tools by focusing on status codes rather than raw usage data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_usage or get_usage. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts.

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