Org Drop usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the org-scoped scope and endpoint, which is useful context, but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or response shape. This mirrors the 'high' example where annotations plus scope earned a 3.

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 with the key term front-loaded and the endpoint provided for reference. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple, with one parameter and a clear GET endpoint. The description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema, it would be slightly stronger to mention what the usage data includes (e.g., bytes, count), so it stops short of a 5.

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% with one org_id parameter. The description compensates somewhat by showing the endpoint /orgs/{id}/drop/usage, implying org_id maps to {id}. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, but the description does not provide extra detail like format or constraints, so a 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 states it retrieves org-scoped Drop usage, with the specific endpoint GET /orgs/{id}/drop/usage. The 'Org-scoped' qualifier distinguishes it from general org_usage and drop_usage siblings, making the resource and scope explicit.

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 implies use for org-level Drop usage but does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools like org_usage or drop_usage, nor does it state any exclusions. The org-scoped wording gives a hint, but no direct guidance on tool selection is provided.

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