ibmcloud_billing_org_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but gives no details about required permissions, data aggregation, output format, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a simple read tool.

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, terse sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the action, though it sacrifices context for brevity. It is not as polished as a two-sentence description that also provides usage alternatives.

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 simple getter with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of any mention of output shape, optional month behavior, or relation to other billing usage tools leaves some gaps. It is complete enough for a basic call, but not richly contextual.

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 input schema covers both parameters (org and month) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so 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 'Get Cloud Foundry org usage' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (Cloud Foundry org usage). It distinguishes itself from sibling billing tools like account, resource group, and resource instance usage by specifying 'Cloud Foundry org', though it doesn't enumerate the specific usage fields.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the similar billing siblings (ibmcloud_billing_account_usage, ibmcloud_billing_resource_group_usage, etc.). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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