get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the access requirement and that start_login is not a valid path, which is useful. However, it does not describe expected return structure, error behavior, or any safety/read-only characteristics beyond the verb 'Get.'

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 well-structured: purpose and content are front-loaded, followed by a separate ACCESS note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The description provides enough to understand the tool's purpose and access prerequisites, but lacks important context such as how months and period interact, expected output shape, or behavior without parameters. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, more detail would help the agent invoke and interpret this correctly.

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%, with both parameters (months and period) already documented clearly. The tool description does not repeat or augment the parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get usage metrics for the authenticated account' and enumerates what is included: 'verification counts, API calls, and quota usage.' This distinguishes it from generic usage tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_api_key_usage.

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 explicit access context: it requires a Proof account, asks the user to set PROOF_API_KEY and restart the server, and warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. It gives clear when-to-use guidance regarding access, but does not name alternative tools for similar usage metrics.

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