get_account_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and hints at a local/cached source via 'locally measured', but discloses nothing about permissions, freshness, rate limits, or whether results are stale.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though at the cost of the detail the other dimensions need.

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 one-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the general return content (token totals, recent jobs) but leaves return shape, freshness, and failure behavior unexplained, which matters given the missing output schema.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'for one account' only weakly clarifies that 'account' is a single account identifier rather than a list or filter; it adds no format or identifier-scheme detail.

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 (Return) and resource (token totals and recent jobs for one account), so the agent knows this is a per-account usage read. It is reasonably distinguishable from list_accounts, but it never names its closest sibling refresh_account_usage, which plausibly returns the same data freshly.

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 prerequisite, and no mention of the closely related refresh_account_usage or get_job_status siblings. The agent gets a purpose but no condition that selects this tool over the alternatives.

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