get_usage

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

The 'Get' wording is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as pagination behavior, units, billing-cycle context, or what the response represents.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though its brevity leaves some semantic gaps.

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 read-only tool with two fully documented optional parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it does not clarify what 'data usage' refers to (current cycle, aggregate, or billable amount), and the presence of get_usage_history makes the distinction ambiguous.

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%, with both page and limit fully described including defaults and constraints. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the burden adequately.

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 verb and resource: 'Get data usage for the subscriber.' It is specific enough to identify the tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similarly named sibling get_usage_history.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_usage_history, get_dashboard, or get_account. No conditions, exclusions, or context for selection are given.

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