Get clip usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the result is a comparison of used minutes against a plan limit. It does not address which account/workspace the usage is scoped to, which matters for a zero-parameter, open-world tool.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the key concept (minutes used vs. plan limit) is front-loaded. For a zero-parameter read tool there is nothing to trim and nothing padded.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it only sketches the shape (a used-vs-limit figure). It never states the account scoping or the unit/format of the limit, which are real gaps for an agent assembling a usage report.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. No schema burden is being shirked here.

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 phrase names the specific resource and metric: clipping minutes consumed against the plan limit. That is more than a restatement of the name and tells an agent exactly what is returned. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling get_usage, so the boundary between general usage and clip-specific usage is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of the obvious sibling alternative get_usage. An agent with a question about plan consumption has no stated rule for choosing between get_usage, get_account_analytics, and get_clip_usage.

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