Getting usage statistics for a specific organization

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

The description adds the permission requirement beyond annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. No other behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, pagination) are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, no fluff. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the title, but overall concise and front-loaded.

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 presence of annotations, output schema, and fully described parameters, the description is adequate for a simple read operation. It covers the permission requirement, but could mention error cases or scope.

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 the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for org_id, verbose, or response_format.

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 retrieves license usage details for a specific organization by its ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like action1_get_subscription_usage by specifying the org focus, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 when needing per-org subscription stats and mentions the required permission (manage_organizations), but does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternative tools like action1_get_subscription_usage.

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