browserless_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context beyond that by explaining the account-scoped nature, the breadth of metrics, and the billing-oriented purpose, which helps the agent understand what the call exposes and how it is meant to be used.

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 focused sentences: one defining scope and returned data, and one providing usage intent and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessarily repeated annotation 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?

For a read-only tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It names the resource, the data categories returned, the intended usage questions, and the sibling to use for related but distinct needs, so an agent can confidently select and invoke it.

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 100% description coverage and clearly documents all three parameters, their defaults, and restrictions. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it adds no unique parameter nuance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as reading request and unit consumption for the Browserless account behind the current API token, and lists the specific metrics returned. It also explicitly differentiates itself from browserless_logs by noting that per-request failure details are handled there, making purpose and boundary unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool, with example user questions like "how much have I used" and "why is my bill high". It also gives a direct exclusion by telling the agent to use browserless_logs instead when per-request failure detail is needed, which is strong alternative routing.

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