get_control_account_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description only restates a read operation without adding details about errors, response shape, permissions, or pagination. No extra behavioral context is disclosed beyond what annotations provide, though there is no contradiction.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description captures the essential invocation details. It does not describe return shape, but that is less critical for a standard retrieval; mentioning the sibling list tool would improve it further.

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 schema fully documents utilizationId as 'Usage/Utilization ID' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The description's 'by utilization ID' simply reinforces that the parameter is the lookup key.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Control Account usage record') and identifies the lookup key ('utilization ID'). The qualifier 'specific' plus the by-ID mechanism distinguishes it from list_control_account_usages.

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 phrase 'specific ... by utilization ID' implies the tool is for retrieving one known record rather than listing. However, there is no explicit alternative routing (e.g., 'use list_control_account_usages to enumerate records') or when-not condition.

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