get_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is returned, not behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, freshness of data, or error conditions. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated) or any system impacts.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action ('Get a full dashboard') followed by specific details about what's included.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned but lacks information about authentication, rate limits, or error handling. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for an agent.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output scope.

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 what the tool does ('Get a full dashboard of your Claude Pro/Max subscription usage') with specific resources identified (session limits, weekly limits, extra usage credits). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning comprehensive dashboard vs. specific components, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 usage context (checking subscription usage) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools like get_session_usage or get_weekly_limits. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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