manus_usage_team_statistic

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

With no annotations, the description must fully describe behavior. It states the output (daily totals) and parameter format (Unix seconds). However, it does not disclose error conditions for non-team accounts, authorization needs, or whether results include current day. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, audience, and parameter details. No superfluous information; front-loaded with primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description covers who can use it, what it returns, and parameter format. It lacks output structure details (e.g., date-total pairs), but given the low complexity, it is nearly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by specifying parameters are Unix seconds and optional. It adds format information but does not explain default behavior when omitted or whether both are required together. This provides some value but incomplete 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 states the tool returns 'Daily team credit consumption totals', specifying the verb (get totals) and resource (team credit consumption). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that team accounts see team totals while members see only their own, contrasting with individual usage tools like manus_usage_list.

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: this tool is for team accounts, and members should use alternatives for their own totals. It implies when to use this tool (team-level aggregation) but does not explicitly name the sibling tool for individual usage, leaving some ambiguity.

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