apitaco_get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (total tokens and cost) and the default window, but says nothing about permission/auth requirements, whether stats are account-wide or per-key, data freshness, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return payload stated second; every clause 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 one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials by naming the returned metrics and the default window. It falls just short on the aggregation scope and auth assumptions an agent might need.

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% and the single parameter already documents its default (7) and maximum (90). The description only restates the default, adding no format, timezone, or unit detail beyond the 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (Apitaco usage stats), with the window scope and the returned metrics named. It is distinguishable from apitaco_get_balance and apitaco_list_models by subject matter, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 window parameter implies a usage-reporting scenario, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over apitaco_get_balance (remaining credits vs consumed tokens/cost is a real ambiguity here) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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