get_api_usage_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (gets stats) and mentions it is FREE. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but the context implies a safe read operation. For a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It includes the purpose, the data shown, and a usage tip. Every sentence provides value.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (credit usage, remaining credits, rate limit info). It also adds context for when to use (verify API key). With zero parameters and simple semantics, the description is fully complete.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not mislead.

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 purpose: 'Get API usage statistics for your Apollo account'. It specifies what is shown (credit usage, remaining credits, rate limit info) and suggests a use case. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are about contacts, sequences, etc.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first to verify your API key works.' This tells the agent when to use it. There are no alternative tools for this purpose, so exclusion is naturally handled.

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