getMonthToDateVolume

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and includes the HTTP method (GET), which is useful behavioral context. It also mentions a rate limit of 100 requests per 1m, which is a meaningful operational constraint. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and could add more context about what 'processing volume' includes or whether it reflects live or cached data.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the rate limit and read-only/endpoint details. Every element earns its place, and there is no wasted wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the endpoint, the read-only nature, and the rate limit. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the response shape or units of the volume, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to rely on. The description compensates by clearly stating the resource and scope (tenant's month-to-date processing volume), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool operates on. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 gets the tenant's month-to-date processing volume, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the endpoint (GET /paygate/me/volume), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar analytics/usage tools like getUsageQuota or getPaymentStats.

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 context by identifying the resource as the tenant's month-to-date processing volume, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getUsageQuota or getPaymentStats. The rate limit is mentioned, which is useful operational guidance, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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