Get detailed usage statistics

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 accurately indicates a read operation ('Return') and describes the response contents, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as data freshness, pagination, or performance implications. The schema covers limits via the 'limit' parameter, but the description itself adds no extra behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core function and then enumerates the response components. It is efficient, with no redundant phrases, though the list is somewhat long. Every part contributes value.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values by listing the main data points. It covers the period options and mentions recent activity, which aligns with the 'limit' parameter. It does not clarify the default period or the default limit, but those are in the schema defaults. Overall, sufficient for a reporting tool with no annotations.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'period' already documented in the schema. The tool description restates the period options ('day, week, or month') but does not add new parameter details. Per rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema handles 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 description uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed usage statistics for the account over a period'). It lists concrete data (credits used, emails processed, request counts by endpoint/source, daily breakdown, recent activity), making it distinct from siblings like get_credits or get_account.

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 use for detailed reporting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_credits (for credit balance) or get_account. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied by the detailed scope.

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