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; it does disclose what the response contains (spend, job count, average cost), implying a read-only analytics operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how the period scoping affects results, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation 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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the payload without padding. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it could trade a few words for usage routing.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the metric enumeration is reasonably complete. It still omits when to prefer this over sibling cost tools and how the 'all' period behaves, leaving minor gaps.

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 full description coverage for the single 'period' parameter including its enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no period syntax or scoping detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (usage analytics) and enumerates the concrete metrics returned: spend by provider, job count, average cost per query. It is distinguishable from siblings like balance, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the related cost/account tools (balance, list_providers), and no mention of prerequisites or the default 30d period. The context is only implied by the word 'usage'.

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