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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it), whether it requires authentication, what the response format looks like, or what happens when zero usage exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and resource. However, it is somewhat under-specified given the ambiguity about what 'usage statistics' means, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (1 optional parameter, no output schema), which lowers the complexity bar. However, with no annotations and an ambiguous term like 'usage statistics', the description doesn't fully clarify what data is returned or how it relates to the sibling tools. The lack of an output schema means the description should hint at return semantics, which it doesn't.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'days' parameter with its default value. The description adds no information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides—for instance, it doesn't clarify the valid range or what units. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Get recent usage statistics from your Farebox account' which is a clear verb+resource combo. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_balance, which could also be confused as a usage/account tool. The phrase 'usage statistics' is somewhat ambiguous—does it mean API usage, token usage, or something else?

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_balance and chat, an agent might struggle to decide whether get_usage or get_balance is appropriate for a query about account consumption. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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