Get Consumption Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait—'with comparison to the previous period'—and explains offset semantics. However, it does not clarify whether the data is historical, real-time, or subject to any aggregation delays, nor does it describe auth or rate-limit behavior. For a simple read-only report tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second covers parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and no required parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. But it lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and fails to document home_id semantics. The explanation of period and offset is enough for basic invocation, but an agent still has to guess at edge cases like null home_id.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for period ('week', 'month' or 'year') and offset (0 = current period, 1 = previous, etc.), adding meaning far beyond the bare schema defaults. However, home_id is left unexplained, which is a notable gap given it is one of only three parameters.

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 resource: an aggregated consumption/cost report with comparison to the previous period. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_consumption, which presumably returns raw consumption data, and get_current_price, which returns price data. It is specific about the report's nature, though it does not explicitly name an alternative 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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_consumption or get_current_price. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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