check_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 discloses 'No token cost' which is a positive behavioral trait, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only check, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by a key benefit. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does. It could be improved by specifying the return format, but it's largely complete for its purpose.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description's mention of checking balance and usage compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 checks token balance, usage in the current billing cycle, and active plan. It uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'Kongen Token balance/usage/plan', and is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools which involve routing, scoring, and transferring.

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 token status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given the simplicity and distinct purpose, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not above average.

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