veyline_usage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does state the operation is non-mutating and organization-scoped via the authenticated principal, implying credential requirements. It omits what the read returns, whether data is live or cached, and any rate or permission constraints.

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, front-loaded with the resource and a safety qualifier. The trailing parenthetical "(Rail A2A skill veyline_usage.)" restates the tool name and adds little, but the cost is small.

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 read with no output schema, the description should indicate what the response contains (which quota dimensions, usage windows, remaining vs. limit). It names the concepts but not the shape, leaving an agent unable to plan on the result.

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 the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the organization is derived from authentication context rather than a parameter.

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?

"Read the current authenticated organization quota and usage" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (quota and usage) scoped to the authenticated organization. It does not distinguish this from siblings like veyline_status or veyline_preflight, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. "Does not change policy" clarifies effects rather than selecting conditions, and nothing tells an agent whether to reach for this before or instead of veyline_preflight or veyline_status.

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