get_usage_events

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates 'query only' and the HTTP method, but does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior beyond defaults, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 one-line summary followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficiently uses space, though the parameter list partially duplicates schema information.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the parameters adequately and indicates filtering. However, missing usage guidance and behavioral details make it incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description provides meaningful context for all 5 parameters: explains start/end date as epoch ms, users as comma-separated emails/IDs, page as 1-indexed, and page_size with defaults. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'usage events', and specifies filtering capability with the POST endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_agent_usage or get_daily_usage_data, which are related but distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_agent_usage, get_daily_usage_data). The 'query only' note implies read-only but does not offer usage context or exclusions.

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