alterlab_get_usage

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the API key for identification and returns specific data points. While read-only nature is implied, it could be explicitly stated. Overall, it provides good behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, use cases, and a note on parameters/authentication. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description gives a solid sense of return values (credits by time periods, top domains) and authentication. Could be slightly more explicit about output format or data freshness, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

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 has 0 parameters, and the description confirms 'No parameters required' and explains authentication via API key. This adds value beyond the empty schema, making it clear that no input is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed spending breakdown for your AlterLab account'), listing exact outputs (credits today/week/month, top domains). It clearly distinguishes from siblings, which are about scraping, crawling, batch operations, etc.

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?

Explicitly states use cases ('audit costs, identify expensive domains, track usage trends') and notes 'No parameters required'. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative tools, though context from sibling names makes this less critical.

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