usage_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the temporal scope (this month, this session) and the per-source granularity, which is real added context, but it never states that the call is a side-effect-free read, whether it requires auth, or whether it is cheap to call repeatedly.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; it leads with what the caller gets and moves straight to scope details. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain the return shape, and it correctly focuses on the data's scope instead. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the auth/side-effect profile is left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no inputs whose semantics need explaining, and the schema has no gaps to compensate for.

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 the specific resource and scope: request counts for this month and this session, broken down per source, plus the last-seen provider rate limit. That is enough to distinguish it from the retrieval-oriented siblings (si_stats aside), though it omits an explicit verb like 'report' and never contrasts itself with si_stats.

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 when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the mention of 'the provider rate limit last seen' strongly implies the motivating scenario: checking quota before or after sustained API use. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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