panelica_accounts_get_v1_accounts_id_disk_usage

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by declaring the required OAuth scope (accounts:read) and the HTTP method, giving the agent concrete auth and invocation context. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: 'List disk usage' immediately states the purpose, followed by HTTP path, category, scopes, and read-only flag. Every line carries distinct and useful information with zero redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only GET endpoint, the description, annotations, and schema together provide enough for correct invocation: the id is the only required input, the auth scope is declared, and safety is clear. No output schema exists, but 'List disk usage' gives a reasonable sense of the return; a note on response format would be a minor improvement.

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% for the single parameter, with 'Path parameter: id'. The description's HTTP path reinforces that id refers to an account ID, but it does not add substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List disk usage'. The HTTP path clarifies it is per-account. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like resource_usage or stats, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides useful context (category, required scopes, read-only) but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as panelica_accounts_get_v1_accounts_id_resource_usage or panelica_accounts_get_v1_accounts_id_stats. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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