ls_list_usage_records

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond these: pagination details (check meta.page for currentPage, lastPage, total) and the cross-store enforcement requirement. This gives the agent insight into response structure and environment-specific constraints.

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 reasonably concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. However, the cross-store note has a slightly awkward comma splice ('Even with that set, Pair with a scoped...') and could be tightened, but it remains clear enough.

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?

For a simple list operation, the description covers essential context: pagination behavior, optional filtering, and a cross-store requirement. While it doesn't detail the shape of individual usage records, the output schema is absent and the pagination note provides useful return structure. This is largely 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (include, pageSize, pageNumber, subscriptionItemId) having its own description. The tool description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond saying 'optionally filtered by subscription item' and mentioning pagination, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'List all usage records, optionally filtered by subscription item,' which is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this listing operation from sibling tools like ls_get_usage_record and ls_create_usage_record. The scope is unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool: to list usage records, with optional filtering by subscription item. It also includes a cross-store note about a required filter condition, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since no direct alternative exists for listing usage records, the context is sufficient.

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