get_usage_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the useful qualifiers 'recent' and 'local' plus the fact that token estimates are included; it says nothing about windowing (how far back 'recent' reaches) or how results are ordered or paginated.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with no filler. It is efficiently written but so terse that the compression costs information rather than saving it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a usage-statistics tool with a limit parameter in a family containing both a usage summary and a reset tool, the definition omits the scope distinction and the parameter's effect, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single `limit` parameter, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot learn from the text whether limit caps records returned, days of history, or estimated rows, nor what the default of 50 bounds.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Show recent local MCP usage and token estimates.' That is far clearer than the bare name, but it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_tool_usage_summary, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of an alternative, and no exclusions. Given siblings named get_tool_usage_summary and reset_usage_stats, the description should say whether this is the raw/recent view versus the aggregated summary, or the read counterpart to the reset.

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