Get usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it counts against quota, whether it reflects cached or live data, or any rate-limit implications. For a usage/quota tool, this context is important.

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 that front-loads the key data points. It earns its place, though it could add a brief note about the 'days' parameter without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain the meaning of 'days', the time window semantics, whether the quota is per-user or per-workspace, or how the response is structured. An agent would need to guess several important details.

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 schema has one optional parameter, 'days', with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic meaning. The description does not mention 'days' at all, leaving the agent to infer that it controls the usage window. Since there is only one parameter and the tool name implies a time range, the gap is moderate but real.

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-resource pair ('Get usage') and enumerates the specific data returned: daily usage, remaining quota for today, and plan limits. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a concrete idea of what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes list_plans and whoami, which could relate to plan/account context, but the description does not mention them or any exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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