Get usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The description does add real behavioral content by naming what is reported (session vs. month consumption and blocked status), but omits any note on scoping, caching, or refresh 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?

Two compact sentences with the payload information front-loaded. The leading 'Read-only.' fragment is redundant against the annotations, a small amount of waste in an otherwise efficient description.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately — session and monthly allowance consumption plus a blocked flag. Units, exact fields, and reset semantics are left unspecified, but the shape of the answer is conveyed.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole 'workspace' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'the workspace has used' weakly implies the default workspace, but it provides no guidance on what value to pass or what happens when omitted.

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 states a specific informational resource (allowance/usage) and its scope (this session and this month, plus whether new work is blocked). It's clear what the tool returns, though it makes no attempt to differentiate from siblings — reasonable here since no sibling is a usage/quota tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but 'whether new work is blocked' implies the natural context of checking quota before starting a run. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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