Get usage summary

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail that annotations do not cover: pagination across all matching events up to a cap, and that spend is returned only 'when the API reports it' – an important conditional the agent should know about. It still omits how the cap interacts with max_events and whether partial results are signaled.

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?

Three clauses in a single tight sentence, front-loading the summary action, then scoping, then return contents. No filler or repetition.

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 10-parameter read-only aggregator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, pagination, and the shape of the return value well. It stops short of explaining the four undescribed parameters or the difference between the various *_uuid filters, which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 60%, so half the parameters (failed, product_area, scenario_uuid, simulation_uuid) have no inline descriptions. The prose gestures at the filter dimensions but does not explain semantics for the undocumented parameters, leaving the description to partially compensate rather than fully cover the gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource (summarizes VerifyAX usage events) and even names the output fields (event count, breakdown by product area, platform spend). It is not explicitly differentiated from the nearest sibling preview_run_cost, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 mentions the filter dimensions obliquely ('over an optional time range or for a specific simulation, scenario, or job') but never states when to use this tool versus preview_run_cost or other cost-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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