usage_timeseries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns JWT-authenticated request and credit consumption buckets and uses UTC buckets, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal disclosure that leaves behavioral aspects largely unspecified.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide key details (what is returned, UTC buckets, and chart rendering context). Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration, 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?

Despite having 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is brief and does not explain the structure of the returned data (e.g., list of objects with timestamps and values) or any constraints on the time range or number of buckets. The schema covers parameter defaults, but the return format and practical usage context are missing. An agent would need to infer too much for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (to, from, range, bucket, endpoint) are documented with descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'UTC buckets', which relates to time but does not elaborate on parameter behavior. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource: 'current user's usage timeseries'. It also specifies what it returns (JWT-authenticated request and credit consumption buckets) and the intended use (chart rendering). This is specific and distinguishes it from other usage tools like usage_overview or usage_endpoints without needing explicit sibling naming.

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 chart rendering but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like usage_overview, usage_endpoints, or usage_platform_adjacency. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the 'chart rendering' hint. This is adequate but not thorough.

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