gateway_telemetry_usage_report

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

Annotations contain only a title, offering no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnly, destructive). The description states that the tool 'Record[s]' usage and requires telemetry:write, implying a mutating operation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, side effects on existing telemetry data, or whether any confirmation is returned. For a reporting tool with minimal annotation coverage, this description insufficiently conveys its behavioral implications.

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 concise, two short sentences, and front-loads the primary action. It avoids unnecessary detail or verbosity. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices essential explanatory content, though for the information it does convey, the structure is efficient.

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 complexity (25 parameters, many with defaults, an output schema), a one-line description is clearly inadequate. It does not explain how to interpret token fields, how to set source_quality to 'actual' vs 'estimated', what correlation_id is for, or what the output schema represents. The description omits critical context that an agent would need to construct a proper usage report, making it incomplete for effective invocation.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions 'actual or estimated' and 'token/cost usage', but does not map these to specific fields or elaborate on the distinction between actual and estimated, nor explain fields like source_quality, raw_event_json, or metadata_json. With 25 parameters and zero schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving parameter meaning unclear.

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 clear verb 'Record' and a specific subject 'agent token/cost usage', which conveys the tool's core function. It distinguishes the tool as a telemetry reporting action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like gateway_telemetry_usage_summary. The purpose is precise enough for an agent to understand the action without ambiguity.

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 only guidance provided is 'Requires telemetry:write', which is a permission requirement, not usage direction. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus other telemetry tools (e.g., usage_summary, skill_started), nor does it indicate scenarios for actual vs estimated usage. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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