Read a customer's rights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares the operation read-only, clarifies that results reflect ProAbono's current view, and exposes a subtle behavior: an empty result is ambiguous rather than definitive. This is strong behavioral context for a read-only lookup.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the definition, the usage distinction, and the empty-result caveat. The most important semantics are front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and the key empty-result ambiguity. It could further describe the per-entry fields or error cases, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the main outcome.

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 documents customer_ref and feature_ref. The description adds context around what a Usage is and how entries relate to Features, but it does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reads a customer's Usages' and defines what that means semantically: what the customer may do right now, one entry per Feature in running subscriptions. It also distinguishes the tool from the offer reference and from list_subscriptions, giving an agent enough to tell it apart from 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?

The description explicitly says this is the source an application gates access on, and warns not to use the offer reference instead. It also gives concrete conditional guidance: an empty result is ambiguous, so check the customer's subscriptions with list_subscriptions before concluding they have no rights.

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