get_api_key_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does so well: it discloses the classification method (audit access/auth-method with user-agent fallback), that results are pre-aggregated, and what per-actor fields are returned. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but 'Report' and 'Returns' strongly imply a safe, read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a concise classification note and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 report tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, defaults, and return shape sufficiently. Minor gaps remain, such as date-boundary inclusivity and explicit guidance about which sibling tools to use instead, but nothing essential is missing for invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. All three parameters are explained with semantics beyond the bare schema: actor_id is an optional UUID, date_from defaults to 30 days ago, and date_to defaults to now, with ISO-8601 format specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report API-key-driven activity per actor' and explicitly excludes UI/session activity. It further clarifies the output (per-actor action breakdown, distinct source IPs, first/last seen timestamps), which distinguishes this tool from the sibling activity tools even without naming them.

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 intended use is clear: this tool is for API-key-driven activity reporting, and the description explicitly notes that UI/session activity is excluded. It also explains the effect of omitting actor_id, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for when this tool should not be used.

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