Inspect Micro account usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific account state being read, though it does not disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits or data freshness. This is acceptable, not exceptional.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loads the verb, and packs meaningful domain information without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It names all the account usage dimensions the agent can expect, and nothing critical seems missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about argument semantics. The description does clarify what data will be returned, which is useful and aligns with the output schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('authenticated account usage') with enumerated data categories: plan, monthly usage, daily runner usage, and spending-cap state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like micro_billing or micro_plans.

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 gives clear context about what the tool is for by naming the exact account usage aspects it reads. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it over siblings.

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