Crew usage stats

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real value by disclosing the data source ('local metadata-only log, no prompts or code'), the per-provider limitation (ChatGPT shows calls and time only), and that context kept out of Claude is a clearly labeled ESTIMATE. It stops short of describing output structure or pagination.

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?

Leads with the core purpose, then packs metric list, provider caveat, estimate disclosure, and data-source note into a few dense sentences. Every clause carries information, though the metric enumeration is long enough to approach list-dumping.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned metrics and qualifying the estimate, so an agent knows what to expect. Missing only minor items like period behavior or result ordering.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'period' param is a self-documenting enum with a default, so the schema carries the burden. The description says nothing about the period parameter or its default, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show what the crew did') and enumerates the exact metrics returned per worker, so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like crew_status or crew_check_citations, despite overlapping on 'findings quote-checked vs unverified'.

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 only implied: the tool reports aggregate usage stats, and the mention that ChatGPT calls show calls and time only hints at data caveats but not when to pick this over crew_status. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named.

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