oauth_client_usage

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

With no readOnlyHint or other behavioral annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'retrieves' implying a read operation, and describes the return data (requests + endpoints breakdown). However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as data latency, rate limits, or required permissions.

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 (~20 words) that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the output details. No extraneous information; every word 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so adequately by mentioning total requests and endpoint breakdown, but lacks details on the structure (e.g., nested objects, pagination) or any caveats about data freshness.

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 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds context that the tool returns usage for a given period, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's action ('retrieves usage') and resource ('OAuth Client'), and specifies the output (total requests and breakdown by Platform API endpoints). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on conversations, queues, or voice calls.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or constraints. It only states the period parameter, but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of sibling tools.

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