ibmcloud_billing_account_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It says 'Get' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose what the returned usage data includes (costs, resource breakdown), whether month is required or defaults to current month, or any access requirements.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or vague text.

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 a simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks detail on what 'usage' includes or what happens when month is omitted. It is not as complete as it could be for a tool with no annotations.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'month' (format YYYY-MM). The description adds no extra semantic detail, so the baseline score 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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('account usage') scoped to a 'billing period'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like billing_resource_group_usage or billing_org_usage by focusing on account-level usage.

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 when to use this tool (when account-level usage is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives for other scopes (e.g., resource group, org). Sibling names provide context but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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