get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a non-destructive read, but it says nothing about whether results are cached, real-time, or whether limits are hard or soft. For a trivial read-only status tool this is a modest but tolerable gap.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the key noun phrase ('plan usage and limits') is front-loaded after a short verb.

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 zero-parameter read there is no output schema, so the description is the agent's only hint about the response, and it only vaguely characterizes it as 'usage and limits' without saying what units, metrics, or nesting to expect. Adequate but leaves a real information gap.

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 zero parameters and full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current plan usage and limits for the account'), so an agent knows exactly what data it returns. No sibling tool covers usage or quota, so it is distinguishable from the account/job/alert tools without further differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: a no-parameter read clearly belongs at the 'check my quota/status' moment, but the description never states when to call it or contrasts it with any alternative. With no close sibling covering usage, no exclusion is strictly needed, keeping this at minimum-viable.

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