GetUsageLambdaTracedInvocations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), includes authentication requirements (403 response for unauthorized users), rate limiting (429 response), and error handling (400 for bad requests). The deprecation warning adds important context about the tool's lifecycle status. It doesn't fully detail response formats beyond examples, but covers key operational aspects.

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 overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes extensive HTTP response details (status codes, content types, examples) that belong in an output schema rather than the description. The core purpose and deprecation note are buried among technical response documentation. While not redundant, it's inefficiently organized with too much low-value information for a tool description.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read operation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, deprecation status, parameters, and behavioral aspects like authentication and rate limits. With an output schema present (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the detailed response documentation in the description is unnecessary but doesn't harm completeness. The main gap is structural organization, not content missing.

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 100%, with both parameters (start_hr and end_hr) fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter information verbatim without adding any additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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's purpose: 'Get hourly usage for Lambda traced invocations.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('hourly usage for Lambda traced invocations'), and scope (hourly data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'GetHourlyUsage' (general) or other usage tools, providing specific focus on Lambda traced invocations.

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 provides usage guidance: it notes that this endpoint is deprecated and directs users to an alternative API ('Get hourly usage by product family API') for current usage. This tells the agent when not to use this tool (for new implementations) and what to use instead, which is crucial for avoiding deprecated functionality.

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