usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying the return JSON structure (including truncated flag) and advising to apply filters or pagination when truncated. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations, though no further caveats about performance or auth are provided.

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 concise with two focused paragraphs: first states purpose and usage guidance, second details sub-actions and return format. Every sentence adds value, no filler. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description provides return structure and truncation behavior. However, it mentions applying 'filters or pagination params' without specifying what those might be, which is slightly vague. Annotations cover safety. Overall fairly complete for complexity level.

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% and the single parameter 'action' is well-documented in the schema with enum and description. The description restates the sub-action 'list' but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema bears the load.

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 retrieves academy-wide usage and licensing summary statistics, including specific data points like total users and license utilization. It distinguishes from the sibling 'dashboard' tool by contrasting scope (academy-wide vs per-user). The verb 'Get' and resource 'usage' are specific and well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for high-level academy usage stats') and when not to ('for per-user training data and progress details, use the dashboard tool instead'), naming a direct alternative. This provides clear decision guidance for an AI agent.

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