get_usage

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 discloses the environment restriction and error behavior for custom endpoints, but does not mention whether authentication is required or if the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it). Additional transparency on response behavior might be helpful.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a critical usage condition. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what the tool returns and where it works. However, it could briefly mention that the operation is read-only or that it returns current usage values, but overall it is adequate.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining what information is returned (quota and rate-limit info) and the environment condition, exceeding the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.

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 quota and rate-limit information for the current plan, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'usage'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on agents, tasks, webhooks, etc., by focusing on plan-level metrics.

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 restricts usage to the hosted API (api.delega.dev) and notes that custom endpoints receive a clear error. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, which is acceptable given no similar sibling tools exist.

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