ibmcloud_billing_resource_group_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, but 'Get resource group usage' offers no information about required permissions, default behavior for the optional month parameter, or the nature of the returned data. This is insufficient for a tool that likely has nuances around billing 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and not verbose. However, it essentially restates the tool name and adds no extra information, making it minimally acceptable but not exceptional.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description fails to clarify what 'usage' means (cost, resources, etc.), how it relates to sibling billing tools, or what the response format would be. The existence of multiple billing scopes (account, org, resource instances) makes this lack of context problematic.

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%—both 'month' and 'resource_group' have clear descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameters effectively.

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 resource group usage' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (resource group usage), making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling billing tools like account, org, or resource instances usage, which all follow the same pattern.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool instead of the other billing usage tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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