Get tool connection usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and nondestructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class. However, it does not disclose what the response contains or any side effects (though likely none). It does not contradict annotations.

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 short (three lines) but repetition occurs: the first line duplicates the title. It is under-specified for a tool with many siblings and an undocumented parameter. While not verbose, it sacrifices essential detail for brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so returns do not need detailed explanation. However, given the large number of sibling tools and the vague term 'usage', more context is needed (e.g., what usage data is retrieved, typical values). The description is adequate but not complete for an agent unfamiliar with the API.

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 one required parameter (path.connectionId) with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the endpoint includes {connectionId} but does not explain what connectionId is or its format. This fails to add meaning beyond the raw 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'tool connection usage' clearly. It specifies the HTTP endpoint and authorization class, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not define what 'usage' encompasses (e.g., counts, logs, summary), leaving some ambiguity. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_tool_connections_by_connection_id_activity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for tool connections (e.g., getting the connection itself, activity, grants), but no context for choosing this one. The description lacks both explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.

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