check_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb "Check" and the returned metrics imply a non-mutating read, and the description does disclose the all-accounts behavior, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether values are cached/live.

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, no filler, with the core metrics front-loaded and the account-scoping special case appended. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (usage, quota %, remaining requests, spend), which compensates for the absent output schema. It stops short of describing formats or units, leaving a minor gap.

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% and the single account parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'all' value and the default (currently active account). The description's mention of account='all' repeats schema content rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ("Check") and enumerates the exact resources surfaced: weekly usage, quota percentage, remaining requests, and on-demand spend, scoped to Cursor / Grok Bot accounts. No sibling tool overlaps this concern, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from switch_account, list_bots, and the transcript tools.

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 second sentence covers what account='all' returns, but that is parameter behavior, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this tool versus other account tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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