x_api_get_usage

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full behavioral disclosure. It states 'Risk: read-only', describes environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, explains credentialKey profile selection, and lists common failure conditions and safety warnings. This goes well beyond the schema and provides the agent with a solid understanding of the tool's runtime 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 well-structured with clear labeled sections and an example, which aids readability. However, 'Use when: Get usage' is redundant with the tool name, and the read-only risk is repeated in both the Risk line and Safety warnings. It could be tightened without losing information.

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?

The description covers many aspects—prerequisites, environment selection, failure conditions, response shape, and safety—which is substantial for a tool with no output schema. However, it fails to state what 'usage' actually means (e.g., API call counts, quota consumption, billing), leaving the tool's core responsibility ambiguous. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, this gap prevents full contextual completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the auth resolution semantics for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, and notes days as integer. However, it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType entirely, and does not mention that days can also accept a numeric string per the schema. Thus it only partially compensates.

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 opens with 'Get usage,' which merely restates the tool name without specifying what 'usage' refers to (e.g., API usage metrics). The subsequent details like 'X API auth failures' and response shape imply it retrieves API usage, but the primary purpose statement is tautological and does not distinguish this from the many sibling x_api_* 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?

'Use when: Get usage' provides no concrete scenario. However, it does offer explicit 'Do not use when' guidance (exploration → prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion) and lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools (x_connection_info, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request). This gives some decision support, but the actual use case remains vague.

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