avanan_get_monthly_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 discloses the output structure ('per-day, per-tenant rows with user count, daily price, and cost') and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state side effects, but for a retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 a single, tightly structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then summarizes the output. There is zero wasted wording, and every phrase adds value.

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 describes the return rows and their fields, and it states the scope across all tenants. It does not mention pagination, error conditions, or rate limits, but for a simple two-parameter retrieval tool this is reasonably complete.

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 'year' and 'month' parameters. The description adds no extra semantics for the parameters themselves; it only reinforces that they specify a month. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a distinct resource ('monthly usage details across all customer tenants for a given year/month'), and the return format. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'avanan_get_daily_usage' by the 'monthly' vs 'daily' scope.

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 clear context that this tool retrieves monthly usage data across all tenants, which implies its use case for monthly reporting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with avanan_get_daily_usage or state when to use one over the other, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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