get_usage_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data freshness but omits rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior on empty results. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Concise: two sentences for purpose and latency, then bullet-like examples. No filler. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections) but efficient.

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?

Has output schema, so return format is covered. Description includes usage context, examples, and latency. Lacks details on pagination and error conditions, but overall sufficient for a reporting 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 coverage is 83%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context via examples and mentions bucketing/grouping, but does not explain each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Marginal added value.

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 retrieves detailed token usage from the Messages API and lists return fields (token counts, request counts). It distinguishes from siblings like get_cost_report by emphasizing dimensions and time bucketing, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides concrete example questions and mentions data latency (~5 minutes). However, it does not state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives for other reporting needs.

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