get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains the arguments and does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. While 'Get' implies a read, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe what 'detailed' means in practice.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a one-line purpose followed by an Args section that cleanly explains parameters. There is no fluff; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains parameters but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a summary, a list, or a breakdown). It also omits any error conditions or prerequisites beyond profile_pid. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent calling the tool for the first time.

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 fully explains each parameter: profile_pid (with context), day (days ago to start), and ndays (number of days). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get detailed internet usage for a profile.' It distinguishes itself from list_profiles by referencing it as a source for profile IDs, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_usage_categories, leaving some ambiguity about which usage tool to use.

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 implies usage by explaining the profile_pid parameter as coming from list_profiles and noting a fallback to a configured profile. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_usage_categories, leaving the selection to inference.

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