get_enterprise_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope word 'enterprise-wide'; it says nothing about aggregation level, permissions required, freshness of the data, or what the usage numbers represent.

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?

It is a single six-word fragment with no padding, so there is no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise and lacks any front-loaded verb or object to orient the agent.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of information about what this call returns, and it provides essentially nothing beyond the tool name — an agent cannot tell whether the result is totals, per-endpoint rows, or a time series.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface the description needs to explain.

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 the resources in scope (license/endpoint usage) and the scope (enterprise-wide), but it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that it retrieves/aggregates these metrics. It does not distinguish itself from the many list_*/get_* siblings that also operate on endpoints and reports.

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 call this versus alternatives such as list_endpoints, get_endpoint, or the report tools. The 'enterprise-wide' qualifier hints at aggregate scope but no condition for selection is given.

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