Billing Usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of a usage summary and filter dimensions, but gives no additional behavioral context such as aggregation behavior, external API dependence, or link generation behavior.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing key filters. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 11 parameters, multiple undocumented fields, and an ambiguous sibling relationship, this description is too thin to support confident tool selection and invocation. While the output schema helps with return values, the description does not address selection criteria, alternative tools, or parameter semantics sufficiently.

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 only 45%, so the description partially compensates by clarifying that date, granularity, and model are filters—helpful especially because 'model' has no schema description. However, it leaves several other undocumented parameters (outcome, actionType, chargeStatus) unexplained and does not clarify date formats or filter combinations.

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 identifies the action (Return), the resource (Cloudeval billing usage summary), and the primary filter dimensions (date, granularity, model). However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling billing_summary, which likely has an overlapping purpose, so sibling distinction is missing.

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 such as billing_summary or billing_ledger. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.

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