get_api_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this reads local counters and does NOT perform an API call, so it consumes no quota and has no side effects. It stops short of stating that the returned counters reset at period boundaries, but for a read-only local counter the disclosure is meaningful.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and its numeric meaning are front-loaded, and the side-effect disclaimer follows as a compact second clause.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: today's call count against a 300 limit and last minute's count against a 20 limit, plus the fact that no API call is made. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no risk of ambiguity. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly omits parameter discussion.

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 specific verb and resource: it reports local consumption of the API quota, and even quantifies the limits (calls today / 300, last minute / 20). No sibling tool overlaps with this purpose, so the agent can identify it immediately without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'N'appelle pas l'API' hints that this is a cheap, local, safe-to-call check, but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. Adequate for a trivial zero-argument utility, but nothing explicit.

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