Get Usage Analytics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the aggregation semantics: it returns highest/lowest/average alongside per-day/per-month buckets, and it signals cost-efficiency. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though return shape and pagination are not addressed.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then filters, then the cost/value pitch. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it partially does so via highest/lowest/average but not the record shape. For a 7-parameter analytics tool with 29% schema coverage and a near-twin sibling, the definition leaves notable gaps in date semantics and sibling differentiation.

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 coverage is only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does explain three filter dimensions (user, number, serving country) and the day/month interval, but says nothing about startDate/endDate semantics or what orderBy sorts by — leaving roughly half the parameters uninterpreted in both places.

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+resource with real substance: aggregated data/voice/SMS consumption per day or month, including highest/lowest/average. This clearly separates it from raw listing conceptually, but the description never names sibling telgea_list_usage, which is the obvious point of confusion.

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?

"Cheapest way to answer 'how much did we use'" implies the usage context (aggregate consumption questions) but gives no explicit when-not or alternative. An agent choosing between this and telgea_list_usage gets no routing rule.

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