get_usage

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 describes the return content (calls made today, calls remaining, tier, upgrade options) which is helpful, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this counts against API usage itself. It adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details the return values. Every word contributes meaning with zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by explaining what the tool does and what it returns. However, for a tool that reports on API usage and limits, more detail on behavioral aspects (like whether calling it consumes API calls) would be beneficial. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check', 'Returns') and resources ('API usage, rate limits, and tier status'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on API usage metrics rather than market data or key generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_history' which might also involve usage tracking.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency recommendations, or contrast with sibling tools like 'get_history' that might overlap in functionality. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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