List Usage Records

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: each call consumes requests from a 1000/day budget shared across everyone using the key, results are cursor-paged, and records expose who called whom (a privacy-relevant detail). This is the kind of cost and data-sensitivity context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three dense sentences: what is returned first, then window/paging mechanics, then budget cost, then alternative routing. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (detail-only usage, request budget) are 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 compensates by enumerating the record fields an agent will receive. Combined with the budget, window and paging notes, there is nothing essential missing for calling this 6-parameter list tool 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?

Schema coverage is high (83%, only pageSize undocumented), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds framing beyond it by calling out the 31-day window cap and that paging is cursor-based rather than offset-based, telling the agent to iterate with nextCursor instead of requesting everything at once.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (raw call, SMS, MMS and data records) and enumerates the record contents (timestamps, amount, roaming/international class, counterparty), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling aggregator by stating that totals belong to telgea_get_usage_analytics.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use telgea_get_usage_analytics for totals, and reach for raw records 'only when the detail is needed' — a clear when-to-use/when-not paired with a named alternative. It also surfaces the operational constraint (max 31-day window, cursor paging) that shapes how to call it.

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