Статистика использования токенов AI-агента

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

Annotations provide safety hints (not destructive, idempotent false) and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the time interval aggregation behavior but does not disclose potential response details or any side effects. Since annotations lower the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key parameter details. It is concise, well-structured, and every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple with four parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema. The description explains the core behavior and parameter formats, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not specify the structure of the returned statistics (e.g., total tokens, input/output split), which would have been helpful for full 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description reinforces start_time/end_time as ISO 8601 and interval default of 60 minutes, but these are already in the schema. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns token usage statistics for an agent over time intervals, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('token usage statistics'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_ai_agents and get_ai_agent by focusing on usage statistics rather than listing or retrieving agent details.

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 when to use the tool (when needing token usage statistics) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, so the context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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