get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the returned fields but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, caching behavior, or error conditions. For a read-only tool, more context on safe usage would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second lists key return values. No superfluous words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. However, it does not mention data recency, pagination, or any limitations. For a simple usage check, this is mostly sufficient, but additional context (e.g., 'returns live data') could improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema requires no additional explanation. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no unnecessary parameter info. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids over-explaining.

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 tool retrieves current month's event usage and plan limits, and lists the specific return fields (plan type, events used, monthly limit, percentage). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'usage', distinguishing it from sibling analytics 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?

The description implies usage for checking current usage/plan limits but does not clarify when to use this tool over alternatives like get_analytics or get_event_counts. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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