Get billing summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail that the result reflects live spend and current usage (not cached/invoiced totals), but says nothing about permissions, freshness, or data sources beyond that.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the usage trigger before the scope and payload description. No filler, though the trailing 'including current usage and live spend' is slightly loose wording.

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 simple read-only, single-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essentials of what the call returns. It still omits any mention of the sibling 'billing_status' distinction and any statement about what the summary actually includes (line items, period, currency), which would matter when choosing between the two.

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%, so the description must explain the single workspaceId parameter. It only alludes to it via 'for a Lizard workspace', never stating that workspaceId identifies which workspace to bill or what format the ID takes, so the parameter's meaning is inferred rather than documented.

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 names a specific verb+resource combination: a cost/billing summary for a workspace, plus what it contains (current usage and live spend). It is clearly distinct from most siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent 'billing_status' tool, so an agent cannot disambiguate the two from the text alone.

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 opening clause ('Use this when the user wants a cost/billing summary') gives a usable trigger condition. However, there are no exclusions or prerequisites, and the obvious alternative 'billing_status' is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which billing tool to pick.

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