Org API — usage

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the authentication mechanisms (X-Api-Key vs user Bearer) and how the tool routes based on org_id. This adds useful behavioral context. It does not describe response format, but the read-only safety is already declared by annotations.

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 of 21 words, directly states the tool's purpose, and front-loads the key term 'Org usage'. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, but it does not describe what usage data is returned or its structure. It does cover the two auth modes and endpoints well. Given the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of the parameters, it is adequate but has a clear gap in response expectations.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (org_id and period), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description essentially restates the org_id routing behavior found in the schema, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline for full coverage is 3.

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 resource (org usage) and provides exact endpoints for two authentication modes, which distinguishes it from tools like org_get. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' but the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling usage tools like drop_usage, but the endpoint details help.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: if org_id is set, use user Bearer on /orgs/{id}/usage; otherwise use org API key for self usage. This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the two-mode guidance is valuable for an agent.

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