flowforge_get_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the output medium (JSON or Markdown) and the error convention ('Returns "Error: ..." on failure'), which lets an agent detect and handle failures programmatically. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant sentence, then a clean Args/Returns/Error layout. The Args line largely restates schema keys and the Returns line is thin, so a small amount of text does not earn its place, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 single read-only reporting tool with an output schema (so return values need not be spelled out) and annotations covering safety, the description supplies report selection, output format, and error signaling. The remaining gap is that it never differentiates from sibling billing/balance tools or explains which parameters pair with which breakdown.

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 Args block merely enumerates parameter names (breakdown, date_from/date_to, period_days, threshold_days, limit, response_format) without explaining per-parameter meaning — e.g. what threshold_days counts or which breakdowns honor which date fields. Since the reported schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only compensating source and it only partially fills the gap, leaving interpretation to the nested schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get a billing report') and enumerates the concrete report variants (current-month, forecast, insights, agents-efficiency, idle-phones, ledger), so an agent knows exactly what class of data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling flowforge_get_balance, which an agent could easily confuse with a usage/billing tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated breakdowns hint at when each report is appropriate ('forecast' = month-end projection, 'insights' = cost anomalies/tips), which is genuinely helpful selection context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing advice versus flowforge_get_balance or flowforge_api_request.

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