veto_usage_status

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

The description suggests a read-only dashboard, but the readOnlyHint annotation is false, which contradicts the implied behavior. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, and the inconsistency could mislead the agent.

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 efficiently lists all key data points. No extraneous words, and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Live AI usage dashboard').

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the functionality adequately by listing the data displayed. However, it does not specify the output format or whether the data is aggregated, which could be useful for an agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 is a 'Live AI usage dashboard' and enumerates specific data it shows (tokens consumed, requests per platform, split, history, warnings). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'veto_metrics' or 'veto_rate_status'.

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 usage for checking AI usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions. With no parameters, usage is straightforward, but guidance is missing.

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