subscriptions__usage_summary

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 states it returns usage, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no destructive side effects). The term 'bearer-owned' hints at authentication needs but is not elaborated. Additional behavioral context like idempotency or rate limits is missing.

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 dense sentence with a bracketed prefix. It contains useful information but could be better structured for readability. While concise, the lack of sentence boundaries or formatting reduces clarity.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what it returns (included/overage usage, catalog lineage, conservation totals). However, it lacks detail on the output format, period resolution, and exact meaning of 'conservation totals'. More completeness would be beneficial.

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 0% for the single parameter 'account_id', and the description does not mention parameters at all. The agent must infer from the name. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name, leaving the parameter underspecified.

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 bearer-owned, period-resolved included and overage usage with catalog lineage and conservation totals. It specifies the resource (usage summary) and provides specific attributes, distinguishing it from siblings like subscriptions__mrr_summary. However, the jargon may be slightly dense.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for detailed usage summary, but does not mention exclusions or provide context on when not to use it. Sibling tools like subscriptions__mrr_summary exist but are not referenced.

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