30-day usage summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only reveals that it is a GET request. It does not mention authentication requirements, response format, default behavior of the optional account_token, or any side effects. This leaves critical behavioral information undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, with no redundant words. It is efficient but perhaps too sparse, trading completeness for brevity. Still, the structure is clear and direct.

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?

The description is inadequate given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations. It does not specify the time range (even though the title does), what data is included, or how the account_token alters behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'account_token'. The description does not explain what this parameter means, what values it accepts, or how it affects the request. Given that the parameter is optional, the agent has no basis for deciding whether to include it or what to pass.

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 states a clear action ('GET') and resource ('/v1/organizations/usage'), making the tool's function explicit. The title '30-day usage summary' adds context that it returns usage data over a 30-day period. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the resource name itself is distinct enough for an agent to infer its purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or related tools. The description only states the endpoint, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool over siblings like proxyllm_savings_calculator or proxyllm_list_models.

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