get_credit_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool returns daily credits consumed and totals, but does not mention that it is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential rate limits. It adequately conveys behavior for a simple data retrieval tool.

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: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second adds context on usage. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes the key output details (daily credits consumed and total). Parameter coverage is complete. It could be more precise about the output format, but for a straightforward time-series tool, it is largely sufficient.

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% with both parameters documented with descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (ISO 8601 format, defaults). Baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool retrieves daily credit/cost usage over time, specifying per-day and total values. It distinguishes from many sibling tools by focusing on usage rather than balance or alerts, though it could explicitly differentiate from get_credit_balance or get_credit_ledger.

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 states it is useful for billing and budget tracking, implying when to use. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_credit_balance for current balance or get_billing_alerts for alerts.

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