mcp_usage_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the owner-only authorization requirement and summarizes the returned fields. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but 'stats' strongly implies non-mutation and there is no destructive behavior to disclose.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core resource and metrics are front-loaded, and the access restriction follows immediately.

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 simple read-only stats tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the metrics returned, the per-token grouping, and the authorization prerequisite. The schema handles the look-back window.

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?

There is only one optional parameter (`days`), and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage: 'Look-back window in days; omit or 0 for all time.' The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource (MCP usage stats) and enumerates the metrics returned: total calls, denials, top tools, and first/last seen. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the Taiga project-management siblings, none of which overlap with usage statistics.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting per-token usage and supplies a key prerequisite: 'Owner (full token) only.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus other approaches, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives beyond the access restriction.

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