qa_get_usage

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

The verb 'Read' conveys a non-mutating operation, and 'separate ... ledgers' indicates the response is split by ledger category rather than a single aggregate. With no annotations present, however, the description does not disclose response shape, formatting, or any edge behavior, so it carries only a moderate burden of transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and every word adds information. The ledgers are enumerated compactly with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary qualification.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with a clearly enumerated set of ledgers, the description is largely complete. The absence of an output schema and any detail about response structure is a minor gap, but nothing about invoking this tool is left ambiguous.

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 there is nothing to document; the rubric baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds useful context about what the no-argument call will return without needing to explain parameter syntax or defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource precisely: separate ledgers for AI-credit, rewarded-insight, streak-freeze, and bounded AI activity. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling getters like qa_get_entitlement or qa_get_current_session by focusing on usage ledgers.

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 makes the intended use reasonably clear: call this when you need these specific usage-ledger values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools for related data, leaving routing largely implicit.

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