get_api_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 not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific statistics are returned. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral context is given.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Arg section is compact, but the inclusion of 'ctx' (not in schema) adds minor noise. Overall, it is efficient and earns its place without redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the period format, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. The output schema likely explains return values, so that is not a gap. Still, the absence of when-to-use context leaves the description incomplete for a fully informed 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds valuable context by specifying the period format (Xdays, Xweeks, Xmonths) with examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic string type and default value, helping the agent construct valid inputs. However, it also mentions 'ctx' which is not in the schema, slightly muddying the parameter list.

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 'Get API usage statistics' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_accounts, get_records, etc., which focus on other data domains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool suggestions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage direction.

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