AxonHub usage breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only aggregation behavior through 'Get' and 'usage grouped by', but it does not disclose time window defaults, project scoping behavior, response shape, or any limitations. It adds some behavioral context beyond the schema, but not deeply.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value by identifying the action, result, and grouping options.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented timeWindow parameter, the definition leaves significant gaps. An agent would not know accepted timeWindow formats, defaults, or the exact shape of the returned usage data.

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 only 33%, and the description mostly restates the dimension enum values already visible in the schema. It provides no additional meaning for timeWindow, which has no schema description, and only partial help for projectId, which is already documented in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a concrete resource ('token and cost usage'), and the exact grouping dimensions ('channel, model, API key, or user'). This distinguishes it from siblings like axonhub_list_requests or axonhub_status without needing to open their schemas.

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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for aggregated usage breakdowns rather than raw requests. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and no mention of when not to use it.

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