get_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is returned (operations count, tier info, remaining quota, fees) but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and return values. Every word earns its place - the first sentence states what it does, the second specifies the returned data. No wasted verbiage 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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns. However, for a usage statistics tool, additional context about data scope (current month only), update frequency, or relationship to billing cycles would be helpful. The description meets minimum requirements but could be more complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to document and the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than inputs.

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's purpose: 'Get the current month's usage statistics' specifies the verb (get) and resource (usage statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_balance' or 'get_x402_revenue' by focusing on usage metrics rather than financial balances or revenue data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency recommendations, or contrast with similar tools like 'get_allowance' or 'get_token_info'. The agent must infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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