get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned (current usage, rate limits, reset timing) and implies a read-only operation through 'Get'. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe/read-only or discuss any side effects, permissions, or rate limits on the endpoint itself. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a brief use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. This is a model of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 the simplicity of the tool (0 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context. It enumerates the types of data returned (current usage, rate limits, reset times), which compensates for the missing output schema. It also suggests a common use case. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies for zero parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific detail because none exist, but it clarifies the output content, which is not parameter semantics. The baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get your API usage statistics including current usage, rate limits, and when limits reset.' It specifies the resource (API usage) and the action (get), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_stats, relying on the uniqueness of 'usage' rather than naming alternatives.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for monitoring your API consumption.' This implies when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward, parameterless tool.

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