get_usage_summaries

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 mentions the access restriction for parent-level organizations, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, what 'all usage' encompasses (e.g., time range, data format), or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial access information without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and access restriction, but without annotations, it should ideally mention that it's a read operation and describe the return format (e.g., what 'usage' includes). The lack of output schema means the description should compensate by explaining return values, which it doesn't do.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. In such cases, the baseline score is 4 because there's no need for the description to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate here.

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 purpose: 'Get all usage across your account.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('all usage'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_usage_billable_summaries' or 'get_usage_estimated_costs', which also retrieve usage-related data, so it lacks 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by stating it's 'only accessible for parent-level organizations,' which is an important prerequisite. This helps users understand access requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-parent-level organizations or more specific usage queries, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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