get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The term 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no further behavioral details (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects) are disclosed. Basic purpose is clear, but behavioral context is minimal.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a structured Args section. No wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the parameter well. It lacks detail about the return format (e.g., fields in the usage summary), but the core functionality is sufficiently described for an agent to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains the 'days' parameter with its type (int), optionality, default (30), and valid range (1–365). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 retrieves the authenticated account's usage summary with a per-day breakdown. The verb 'get' and noun 'usage summary' are specific. Sibling tool names (e.g., audio_ducking, text_to_sfx) are unrelated to usage data, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 explicit context by stating the tool is 'useful for cost reconciliation and tracking generation history.' While it doesn't list when not to use this tool or alternatives, the siblings are functionally distinct, making the use case clear.

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