usage_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation and 'authenticated account' signals an auth requirement, but there is no mention of period boundaries, quota reset timing, or response shape. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is moderately adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, though it leaves return-value details unspecified.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description correctly adds no parameter details. The baseline 4 for no-parameter tools applies 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 description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('current period usage and quotas') and a clear scope ('for the authenticated account'). This is more than a tautology and distinguishes it from siblings like budget_get and files_list.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'current period' and 'authenticated account', which helps an agent decide this is the right tool for account-level usage/quota queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is unambiguous enough to route selection.

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