List API Usage Records

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious context: the 403 gating for non-qualifying teams, that FAILED tasks are refunded and show 0 credits, that in-flight tasks are excluded, and the default 30-day / max 1-year window. This is exactly the kind of extra behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the free/gated status, then layers coverage rules, defaults, return shape, and an example in short scannable sentences. No sentence is filler despite the length.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully compensates by enumerating the return object fields (task_id, endpoint, status, consumed_credits, api_key_name, etc.), pagination keys, and a concrete request example. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter syntax and defaults are already documented in the schema (including the note that 'text-to-3d' covers preview and refine). The description restates the default time window and provides a worked example but does not reveal meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list), resource (team's finished API tasks), and scope (credits consumed, newest first), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like meshy_list_tasks and meshy_list_models. An agent can tell what it returns and how it is ordered without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('break down spend per endpoint or API key'), the eligibility gate ('only for API keys on a Studio or Enterprise team (others get 403)'), and what is in/out of scope (SUCCEEDED and FAILED listed, running tasks not listed). Nothing is left to inference.

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