get_monthly_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns usage counts but offers no details on read-only behavior, response format, aggregation logic, or any constraints. This leaves the agent without important behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and free of filler. It is a single fragment, but every word contributes meaning, and the key point about billing/quota usage is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clearly explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'year, month, events' but does not specify the structure, grouping, or whether 'events' refers to counts, names, or a breakdown. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the result shape.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (appId and buildMode), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves; the parenthetical '(year, month, events)' appears to describe output fields, not parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as providing monthly event usage counts for billing/quota purposes. The resource and scope are clear, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_metrics or get_periodic_stats.

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 phrase 'for billing/quota' implies the intended use case, giving some context on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implied.

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