lbm_get_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds value by detailing the return values (credit balance, usage, estimate, breakdown), which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the types of information returned. It covers purpose, usage context, and return content, though it lacks details on parameter format or potential edge cases. Still quite complete for a read-only stats 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the two parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks credit balance and usage statistics, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by advising to call this before lbm_run_scan. The verb 'check' and resource 'credit balance and usage statistics' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this before lbm_run_scan to confirm the user has enough credits.' This clearly instructs the agent on the optimal invocation context and implies when not to use it (after a scan or when not needing pre-check).

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