get_usage

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: some accounts don't expose quota, in which case it returns `status: disabled` and `enabled: false` and the agent should fall back to defaults rather than retry. That degraded-state disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior the schema cannot convey.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by the usage condition and the edge case. The parenthetical is slightly dense but every sentence carries actionable content; nothing is 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?

With an output schema present the description needn't enumerate return fields, and the one return shape that matters (the disabled case) is called out explicitly. Coverage is solid for a zero-argument read; only minor details (e.g. which windows are reported) are left implicit and are available in the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description does not introduce any spurious argument expectations.

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?

States the resource precisely: account quota, with the two facets (usage windows and actions with remaining capacity). The name-plus-description pairing makes it clearly distinct from health_check or source_stats, though the description itself doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('útil antes de lotes de ask_notebook/generate_report para no chocar con límites'), names the concrete sibling operations it protects, and adds an exclusion/fallback rule: if quota isn't exposed, trust defaults and do not retry. When-to-use, when-not-to-worry, and the anti-pattern are all covered.

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