get_daily_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 mentions what data is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the metrics included. Every word earns its place by specifying the scope and content of the data returned, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and data scope but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits) and output details. For a read operation with 5 parameters, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly without trial and error.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (startDate, endDate, page, pageSize, allPages). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as date format clarifications or pagination details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'daily usage data per user', with specific examples of the metrics included (lines added/deleted, applies, accepts, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_dau (likely daily active users) or get_usage_events (likely event-level data) by focusing on aggregated daily user metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dau, get_usage_events, or get_user_deep_dive. The description implies usage for daily aggregated user metrics but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately among similar tools.

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