Grok weekly usage budget

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the data comes from an UNOFFICIAL, undocumented endpoint, that null fields plus `warning` indicate partial data, and that it mirrors the TUI /usage figure. That is exactly the fragility an agent needs to interpret degraded results.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first clause and operational caveats last. A few parentheticals (e.g. config.creditUsagePercent) add detail that is useful but slightly heavy for a no-arg tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the key return fields and their meaning, plus the partial-data signal. Combined with the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents return-field semantics (top-level used_percent/remaining_percent as the overall pool, `products` for per-product rows, period_end as reset time), adding useful meaning despite there being no inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return current Grok Build / SuperGrok weekly pool usage and reset time') and pins the scope to the weekly pool, which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_monthly_credits. An agent knows exactly what data this yields without opening anything else.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use ('Call it once before expensive work') and an explicit when-not ('do not poll in a loop'). It does not explicitly route to the sibling get_monthly_credits when monthly figures are wanted, so it stops just short of full alternative-naming.

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