Usage Get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the title by explaining that usage is measured against both a short rolling window and a weekly window, and that percentages and UTC reset times are provided. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but 'Show' and the query nature make the read-only behavior clear.

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 only two sentences and immediately front-loads the purpose. The second sentence adds valuable nuance without any filler, repetition, or over-explanation.

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 read-only usage-query tool with one documented optional parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, report contents, and the unusual dual-window behavior; the input schema covers authentication/profile handling, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional 'profile' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but that is acceptable because the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence states a specific outcome: 'Show how much of the plan's usage allowance is left, and when it resets.' The second sentence adds precise detail about dual-window metering and the exact values reported. Among the many sibling tools focused on notebooks and collections, this is unmistakably the usage/plan-meter tool.

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 gives clear context about what the tool reports and the two-window semantics, so an agent can recognize when it is the right choice. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no sibling tool appears to compete with this usage-monitoring function.

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