assistantmail_get_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what the response looks like, what units or limits are returned, whether the mailbox must exist, or any error behaviors. This is minimal behavioral transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the key resource is front-loaded. It is efficient and scannable, though it prioritizes brevity over behavioral or parameter detail.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return values and usage context. It does neither, nor does it disambiguate from the similarly named get_usage_reference sibling. For a quota-related tool, missing information about units or response shape is a notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by clarifying that mailboxId is the mailbox whose usage is queried, but it says nothing about apiKey, its format, or how it relates to authentication. The description leaves one of two parameters entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Gets'), a clearly defined resource ('send quota usage for a mailbox'), and the data granularity ('daily and monthly'). It is clear and functional, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool assistantmail_get_usage_reference, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool (when quota usage is needed) but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as assistantmail_get_usage_reference. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose between similar tools.

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