Get Usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Retrieve.' Beyond that, it adds meaningful behavioral context: a `null` limit means no cap, some caps are plan-tier dependent, and broadcasts are never capped. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotation.

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 well-structured with clear headers: Purpose, Returns, and When to use. Every sentence adds value, the key purpose is front-loaded, and the usage examples are directly actionable for an agent.

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?

For a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the purpose, enumerates the returned usage categories, explains null semantics, and gives concrete trigger examples. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description appropriately focuses on what is returned rather than parameter meaning, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Retrieve the account's current usage and plan limits,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools. It enumerates the exact categories returned, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 'When to use' section explicitly lists user intents and example queries like 'what's my usage?' and 'am I close to my limits?'. It does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool closely overlaps this usage-checking function.

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