Get usage record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what a usage record represents, access requirements, or behavior of the account/include parameters, making it a mere restatement.

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 short sentence with no waste and the key noun front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, repeating the title without adding information.

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 simple read-only getter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However, the description offers no domain context about what a usage record is or how it relates to subscriptions, leaving it only minimally viable.

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 100%, so the id, account, and include parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (usage record), scoped to a single record by ID, which distinguishes it implicitly from list_usage_records and create_usage_record. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent gets no confirmation of which alternative to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (list_usage_records, create_usage_record, get_subscription_item_current_usage) despite the crowded sibling set. The agent must infer usage 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.