Get Mock Usage

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

ReadOnlyHint is already declared, and the description reinforces it with 'Read'. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: what each view returns (limit/reset date, monthly totals, per-project breakdown) and the requirement for organization context. No contradictions found.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then concise coverage of views and a practical trigger for use. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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 read-only usage tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the available views, the default behavior, the plan-limit context, and the organizational scope. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds value by explaining what each view value semantically produces, such as 'current' returning the limit and reset date and 'breakdown' returning the current month split by project. The months parameter is already well documented in the 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the organization's mock request usage against its plan limit'), and enumerates the three view variations. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_fixture_usage and get_session_usage, which target different usage types.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: 'This is what to check when mock requests start being rejected.' It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the resource-specific scope and the rejection cue are strong enough guidance for an agent to select this tool.

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