Get PromptJang usage

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: retries and replays are excluded from counts, and the billing-disabled founder beta behavior is disclosed (local usage, zero charge estimate for exempt workspaces).

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 dense sentences front-load the main purpose before adding important exclusions and beta caveats. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only usage tool with an output schema, the description covers the core return values, exclusions, and special-case behavior. No additional prerequisites, auth notes, or alternative routing are needed given the tool's scope and sibling set.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default value. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat it. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact metrics: accepted-item count, estimated USD charge, and pending meter-event count. It clearly identifies the resource as current calendar-month usage, which distinguishes it from the sibling message/event/mailbox tools.

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 gives clear context: it is for reading usage/billing status for the current month. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all unrelated to usage/billing, so there is no real ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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