Billing usage report

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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: dates are inclusive, 'to' defaults to today, and deleted datastores are still included in the period. It does not describe response shape or pagination behavior, but the core behavioral caveats are disclosed.

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 short sentences lead with the core purpose, then supply date behavior and the deleted-datastores caveat. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 an 8-parameter report with no output schema, the description covers the main returned metrics, the date-range inputs, and an important edge case (deleted datastores). It stops short of stating the result grouping/order or how limit/offset are reflected in the response, which would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all eight parameters. The description reinforces date semantics and the 'to' default, and implies the customer_id filter is optional via 'across all customers', but it adds no essential parameter-level detail beyond 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 states exactly what the tool produces: per-datastore resource usage over a date range, with output metrics enumerated (instance hours, volume GiB-hours/IOPS, egress, backup counts). It also scopes the report to 'across all customers', which differentiates it from sibling datastore/user management tools such as ccx_admin_list_datastores. No ambiguity remains about what this tool is for.

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 makes the intended use clear: pull billing/resource usage for a date range across customers, including deleted datastores. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, but the billing scope is distinct enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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