get_usage

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

Without annotations, the description conveys a read-only operation by using verbs like 'Check' and 'Shows'. It details what data is returned (event count vs limit, retention period, plan details), which informs the agent of the tool's output. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is free, but these are less critical for a simple read tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists what is shown. Every sentence adds value.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers functionality and output content. It could optionally mention that it's a read-only operation or the output format, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is baseline for this case.

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 checks event quota usage and plan limits, listing specific details (event count vs limit, retention period, plan details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_budget' and 'get_costs' which focus on financial aspects, while 'get_trace' and related are for trace data.

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 implies usage when needing quota information ('Check your current event quota usage'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_budget' or 'get_alerts'. No when-not or conditional guidance is provided.

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