usage_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only (get) and returns ordered results. However, it lacks details on pagination, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and key details (output fields, ordering, time range). No wasted words.

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 simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and its time-based filtering. However, it could explicitly mention parameter dependencies (e.g., from/to only with range=custom) to improve completeness.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions for from, limit, range, and to. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond summarizing the time range selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the current user's endpoint usage breakdown with per-endpoint request and credit totals, ordered by request volume. This differentiates it from siblings like usage_overview (likely aggregate) and usage_timeseries (time-based).

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 usage for endpoint-level breakdowns but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like usage_overview or usage_timeseries. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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