get_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions what information is returned but doesn't disclose whether this is real-time data, cached values, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a usage monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any redundant words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently lists the three key information types returned.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential 'what' but lacks important context about authentication requirements, data freshness, rate limits, and output format. Given the absence of annotations, it should do more to help an agent understand how to properly interpret and use the results.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, though it could theoretically mention that no inputs are required.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check') and resources ('current API usage, remaining generations, and plan limits'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on usage metrics rather than content generation or platform management, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency recommendations, or contrast with sibling tools like get_connected_platforms or get_trending_topics that might provide related information.

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