get_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies an authentication requirement ('Requires admin API key'), but does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and authentication need but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what the tool returns and how it behaves.

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 already fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of model filtering or date ranges. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition over the comprehensive schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Get usage and spending history') and resources ('Fal.ai workspace'), including what information is returned ('quantity, cost, and breakdown by model'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_pricing' by focusing on historical usage data rather than pricing rates.

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 for when to use this tool (to retrieve usage/spending history) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires admin API key'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for historical analysis rather than current pricing, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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