usage_budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by noting the data is 'Estimates only' and that the daily limit is 'ENFORCED at spawn once reached', which clarifies the tool's non-authoritative, informational nature and the enforcement behavior.

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 sentence that packs in all essential information without wasted words: the metric, the time window, the optional limit, the enforcement point, and the estimation caveat.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the core behavior sufficiently. It names the key data points (runs, limit, tokens/credits) but could have been slightly more explicit about the returned representation; overall, it is reasonably complete for this simple tool.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

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 explains what the tool does: reports per-lane runs since UTC midnight against an optional daily limit, plus estimated token/credit spend. It is specific about the resource (per-lane usage) and scoping (since UTC midnight), but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like usage_report or lane_stats.

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 mention of 'ENFORCED at spawn once reached' implies the tool is useful for checking whether a lane's daily limit has been hit, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is somewhat implied rather than stated.

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