Account & Usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by enumerating the returned content (pooled tokens, per-tier allowances, reset times, 24h/7d breakdown) and reaffirming it never mutates billing/credits/entitlements.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then the mutation disclaimer. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, which it does at a summary level (pooled tokens, allowances, reset times, breakdown). Given a single optional enum param and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete, lacking only detail on result granularity or limits.

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 100% and the single 'window' parameter has a fully documented enum. The description's '24-hour or 7-day breakdown' mirrors the schema's own enum semantics without adding syntax or defaults beyond what's already documented, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('inspect') and exact resource ('the authenticated caller's Bee plan and metered consumption'), which cleanly separates it from every sibling (chat, code, documents, memory, quantum jobs). An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 opening 'Use to inspect the authenticated caller's...' gives clear usage context, and 'It never changes billing, credits, or entitlements' implicitly scopes out mutation-oriented intent. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not condition beyond the mutation disclaimer.

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