get_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the shape of the return (counts, error rates, top endpoints) but says nothing about the time window, aggregation behavior, or any rate-limit/permission context, leaving it only somewhat beyond the 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?

A single sentence with zero waste; the resource and scope are front-loaded before the enumerated metrics. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only stats tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but the undocumented time-window parameter leaves an agent guessing about the reporting period. It should at least state that results cover a configurable recent window.

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% and the lone 'days' parameter (default 30, max 90) is never mentioned in the description. With coverage below 50%, the description should have compensated by explaining the time-window semantics, but it is silent on it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get API usage stats') along with the scoping constraint ('for the current workspace') and enumerates the returned metrics (request counts, error rates, top endpoints). It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from similarly scoped siblings such as get_developer_limits or get_analytics_summary.

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 offers no guidance on when to call this versus get_analytics_summary or get_developer_limits, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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