or_overview

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it combines multiple data sources, is a 'one-shot' call (no pagination implied), and uses 'today's UTC burn' (timezone-specific). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, potential volume implications of 'all active keys', or any authentication requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept ('One-shot dashboard'), and every clause adds value: the content list, the timezone, and the usage recommendation. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid overview of what to expect: credits, keys with reset info, and burn by model. It specifies the exact components returned and the intended use case. It does not detail formatting or nesting, but for a combined dashboard, this is adequate.

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, and the schema covers this completely (100% coverage). With no parameters to describe, the description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose as a 'One-shot dashboard' that combines account credits, active keys with reset info, and today's UTC burn by model. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like or_credits, or_keys_list, and or_activity, which each focus on a single resource.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first when investigating cost or checking key health,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for narrower queries, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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