get_usage_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the output includes servers, RAM, CPU, and disk hours, as well as a summary. It also notes the optional date range parameters. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are omitted.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, but slightly lengthy at about 10 sentences. Every sentence adds value, so it earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal: 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values extensively, but it does mention JSON format and summary. It sufficiently covers input parameters and use cases, though a brief note on pagination or limits would enhance completeness.

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 no descriptions, so the description adds essential meaning by explaining that start_date defaults to 30 days ago and end_date defaults to today, both in YYYY-MM-DD format. This adds value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 retrieves usage statistics for projects, analogous to the OpenStack command. It lists specific functions and use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other resources like availability zones or floating IPs.

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 specifies when to use the tool, such as for billing, resource consumption analysis, or project usage reports. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage context clear.

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