nodemaven_get_usage

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires NODEMAVEN_API_KEY, explains the return format as Markdown or JSON with the same pagination envelope as nodemaven_list_locations, and specifies the failure format. These details help the agent understand side effects, prerequisites, and error handling beyond what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already convey.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: first line states the main purpose, followed by when-to-use, return format, examples, and auth requirement. Each section earns its place, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with well-described schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, return type and format, error behavior, and authentication. It also references the pagination envelope from nodemaven_list_locations, making the integration contract clear without over-explaining.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete usage examples that map natural language queries to specific 'kind' values ('how much traffic have I burned?' -> kind='data'). This helps the agent select the correct parameter values, exceeding the bare schema definitions.

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's function: 'Report account usage: traffic consumed, request counts or per-domain breakdown.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like nodemaven_build_proxy_url or nodemaven_fetch. The examples further clarify what the tool does.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to check remaining traffic before a large run, or to attribute spend to the domains that caused it.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear and specific enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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