get_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying the data source and scope (dashboard event quota vs SDK BudgetGuard vs provider invoice cap), which helps the agent understand exactly what this read operation covers.

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 with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by disambiguating from related concepts. Nothing extraneous.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It states the resource, the source API, and the return scope (quota usage and plan limits), and clarifies what it is not, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read-only'), a clear resource ('hosted event quota usage and plan limits'), and the source ('AgentGuard Read API'). It also explicitly distinguishes this from SDK BudgetGuard and provider invoice caps, which separates it from sibling tools like check_budget and get_costs.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool is for dashboard event quota, not SDK BudgetGuard or provider invoice cap. It gives when-not guidance but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to use in those cases.

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