get_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return content (search counts, per-user breakdowns, credit fields), including null behavior for one-time credit grants. It also mentions default behavior when month is omitted (last 12 months). It does not cover side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool, this is solid coverage.

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 efficient, using two sentences to convey the core purpose, return details, and parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids filler, with every sentence providing substantive information.

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 simple nature of the tool (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return payload and parameter behavior. It does not specify exact pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for this use case, and the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already documents the 'month' parameter with format, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: 'Omit to get the last 12 months' clarifies the default behavior and confirms the parameter is optional. This exceeds the baseline for schema coverage.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get API usage data'. It enumerates what is returned (search counts, per-user breakdowns, IQ credit balance) and differentiates from sibling tools focused on searches, agent runs, and schedules.

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 implies the tool is for usage/credit inquiries, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools or provide alternatives. It gives contextual details like 'Optionally filter by month' but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons, so guidance is merely implied.

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