get_daily_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return ordering (most recent last) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation via 'get', but says nothing about pagination, response shape, or whether idle days are zeroed (that detail lives only in the schema). 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the output semantics are front-loaded before the usage rule. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple, two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and when to pick it. It is nearly complete; only the read-only/cost profile is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the 'get' naming.

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 both parameters (days, agents) are already fully documented, including the zero-fill for idle days. The description adds no parameter syntax or behavioral detail beyond implying a bounded lookback window, so it earns the baseline 3.

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?

States the resource precisely ('tokens per local calendar day') and the ordering ('most recent last'), and implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_usage by contrasting a stretch of time with a lifetime total. It could be sharper by naming get_usage outright, but an agent can place it correctly without the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this for a specific stretch of time rather than a lifetime total. That is genuinely actionable routing guidance, though it stops short of naming the alternative tool (get_usage) or giving any exclusions.

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