get_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned data (total plus per-run breakdown), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, nor does it mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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 phrase with no wasted words and the key scoping information front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, which keeps it off a 5.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but is minimal. It hints at the return shape ('total + per run') without confirming what an omitted runId yields, leaving a small gap an agent must infer.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'id' (agent id) and 'runId' (scope to one run). The description's 'per run' phrasing only loosely reinforces the runId semantics and adds no syntax or format detail, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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 phrase names a specific resource (token usage) scoped to an agent and clarifies the granularity (total plus per-run). The verb is only implicit in the name 'get_usage', and no sibling is named for differentiation, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to siblings like get_agent, get_run, or list_runs. The only hint is that a runId scopes the result, which is left implicit.

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