get_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 of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state safety or lack of mutation. It also does not disclose authentication or rate limits, though these are less critical for a usage query.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the resource, making it both concise and effectively structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: a usage summary and remaining balance. It does not detail the format of the summary, but for a basic usage tool this is adequate. No output schema means the description must convey return information, and it does.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It provides a clear purpose without any parameter ambiguity.

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 clear verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('Orchard account's usage summary and remaining balance'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings (transcribe_file, transcribe_url, get_transcription) which are all transcription-related, so no confusion is possible.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the siblings are all transcription tools, making it obvious that this tool is for account usage, but the guidance is implied rather than explicit. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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