Get partner usage

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

The annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the requirement of an API key for authentication. It does not describe potential errors or what 'usage' encompasses, but given the strong annotation coverage, the added auth context is sufficient for a moderate score.

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 two short sentences, immediately stating the primary function and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or unnecessary details.

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 tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward action, the description is largely complete: it explains what is retrieved and the required auth. Minor gaps exist around the exact response format or definitions of 'account' and 'rate-limit usage,' but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 no schema parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions the required API key, which is not a schema parameter but an external credential, adding context beyond the empty schema. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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's function: retrieving API-key account and rate-limit usage. The verb 'Get' and specific resource (usage) make the purpose precise, and it is distinct from sibling tools which focus on products, deals, or health checks.

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 context by stating it 'Requires PRIJSPROFEET_API_KEY,' which suggests it is for authenticated partners checking their usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over other tools or provide exclusions/alternatives, so the guidance remains implicit.

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