umbrella_api_usage_summary

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. 'Summary' implies a read-only aggregate, but the description does not explain what data is included, whether it covers all API activity, whether results are paginated, or what the response shape looks like.

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?

A single sentence that is clear and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It packs the essential resource and scope into minimal text.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully documented parameters, but the environment has several closely related siblings and no output schema. The description does not clarify what the summary returns or how it differs from the more specific API-usage siblings, leaving an agent under-informed for correct selection.

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%: both 'from' and 'to' are documented as YYYY-MM-DD range bounds. The description only restates this concept ('over a date range') and adds no new meaning, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 resource ('Umbrella API usage') and a date range, so an agent can infer the tool summarizes usage data. However, it does not specify what 'usage' counts—requests, responses, keys, or total volume—and there are several usage-oriented siblings (umbrella_api_usage_requests, umbrella_api_usage_responses, umbrella_api_usage_keys, umbrella_total_requests) that it fails to differentiate from.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not state what kind of summary it provides, what scenarios it fits, or which alternatives to prefer for more granular usage data.

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