get_organization_usage_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The HTTP method (POST) is given but its implications are not explained.

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 concise with a single-line summary followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence is relevant. Could be slightly more streamlined but no wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. The description adequately covers all parameters for a data retrieval tool. Missing context about filtering behavior or relationship to other tools, but sufficient for basic use.

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 description provides brief but useful semantics for all 6 parameters: organization_id format, date range in epoch ms, team_ids_json as JSON array, pagination defaults. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though examples or constraints would enhance it.

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 'Get org-wide usage events' with the specific HTTP method and endpoint, and the 'org-wide' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_usage_events'. It directly answers what the tool does.

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 it's for organization-level data via 'org-wide', but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., get_usage_events). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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