UsageRecords_Retrieveausagereco

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (retrieve) without revealing whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It does not explain scope or implicit behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 very concise: one sentence, no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action. While it earns its place without verbosity, it could sacrifice completeness (see contextual_completeness). The brevity is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what exactly is retrieved (e.g., which usage record, default behavior). It does not. The description is too sparse to be contextually complete, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's precise functionality.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since none exist). According to guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are no parameters to describe. However, it fails to explain what 'a usage-record' refers to, which could be considered a missing semantic for the implicit input (e.g., which record?).

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 states 'Retrieve a usage-record', which is a verb+resource indicating the action and object. However, it is a tautology of the truncated tool name 'UsageRecords_Retrieveausagereco' and does not clarify what qualifies as a 'usage-record' or how this retrieval differs from listing (UsageRecords_Listallusagerecord). It lacks specificity to fully distinguish from siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and sibling tools like UsageRecords_Listallusagerecord or UsageRecords_Createausagerecord.

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