Get Workspace Usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the required permission scope and clarifying that no balances are initialized and no units reserved, i.e. genuinely side-effect free.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the useful information (what is read, then auth/side-effect constraints). No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating credits, upload quota, and creator/campaign capacity. The only gap is the unresolved overlap with check_operation_capacity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States concrete verbs and resources: reads credits, upload quota, and occupied creator/campaign capacity. An agent immediately knows it retrieves usage meters. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling check_operation_capacity, which also sounds capacity-related.

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 gives an auth prerequisite ("Requires usage:read") and a scope exclusion ("does not initialize balances or reserve units"), which implies when it's appropriate. But it never names an alternative or states when to prefer check_operation_capacity over this tool, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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