resellers_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 behavioral burden. It discloses only that the result is 'combined' reseller-plus-owned-users usage, but does not mention read-only nature, permission requirements, aggregation details, or how the result is structured. The tool name implies a get operation, but the description itself is too thin.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the core meaning, and contains no filler. The one-line summary plus the single argument explanation is the minimum efficient expression of the tool's purpose.

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 only one parameter and an output schema present, the basic invocation is documented well enough. However, the lack of usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and any caveats about reseller-specific requirements leaves the description only minimally complete for an agent operating among many sibling tools.

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 schema only defines 'username' as a generic string, while the description clarifies that it must be a reseller name. This is an essential and non-obvious semantic addition that helps the agent pass the correct value.

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 phrase 'Combined reseller + owned-users usage' defines a specific resource and scope, distinguishing it from related usage tools like users_get_usage and admin_usage. It relies on the tool name for the verb, but the intended operation is reasonably clear.

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 this is for retrieving usage across a reseller and its owned users, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over users_get_usage or admin_usage, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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