get_usage_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. It states the tool returns a breakdown and scopes it to 'your organization,' but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or behavior when data is absent. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and add specific service examples. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and what it returns. It could mention output format or pagination, but it's sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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's function: get a breakdown of credit usage by feature and product scope. It explicitly mentions services (voice AI, voice models, platform), making it distinct from siblings like get_credit_balance or get_credit_usage, which are likely simpler totals.

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 implies usage for detailed breakdowns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_credit_usage or get_usage_stats. No direct comparison or exclusions provided.

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