list_sub_account_buckets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, and the description adds what kind of data is returned. It does not, however, disclose pagination behavior, response structure, or whether filters combine, though annotations lower the burden for these omissions.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately note the return metrics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 read-only annotation and a fully described schema, the description is adequate: it states the scope, the returned metric types, and implies the list behavior. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of pagination/filter defaults or explicit alternative tool routing, but these are covered or inferable.

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?

All nine parameters are described in the input schema, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats or interactions, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('bucket-level utilization data for a Sub-Account'), and it states the returned metrics (storage, egress, ingress, API calls). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_control_account_buckets by specifying the account scope.

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 the tool is for retrieving utilization metrics for a sub-account, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as list_control_account_buckets or list_usages. There is enough context to infer usage, but no exclusion or comparison is provided.

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