Recipes Account Usage Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the window is fixed at the past 7 days, so no other range is queryable. It says nothing about what the composite recipe actually aggregates or any caveats, so a 3 is right.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding. The resource and the time scope are front-loaded, and the 'Composite recipe' label signals the tool's nature immediately.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The description supplies the two things an agent actually needs (what is summarized and the fixed window). It could go further by noting that this is a pre-baked multi-widget recipe with no user filters, but nothing essential is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-neutral baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for on this dimension.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: warehouse compute credits and storage consumption over a fixed 7-day window. That resource is unique among the siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema. It stops short of naming or contrasting a sibling, so it sits at a clear-but-not-differentiating 4.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that it is the tool for a cost/usage overview. That inference is easy, but the description provides no routing help.

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