infomaniak_get_ai_consumptions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail 'including pagination metadata when available', which is useful. Yet it does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication, or other operational behaviors, so it stays at a moderate level.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and the resource ('usage/consumption records'). Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 purpose is clear and an output schema exists, so return values are likely covered. However, the complete lack of parameter explanations, especially for the nested query object, leaves invocation details underspecified. The description is enough for tool selection but not fully sufficient for correct invocation without additional inference.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not mention product_id or the query parameters (page, per_page, return) at all. The only thin hint is 'pagination metadata', which relates more to the response than to parameter usage. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is inadequate.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resource 'usage/consumption records for an Infomaniak AI product'. This distinguishes it from sibling AI tools like list_ai_products or get_ai_batch_result by focusing on consumption records. It is not a tautology.

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 usage: when you need consumption records for an AI product, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual differentiation from related AI tools. It is sufficient but not explicit.

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