get_api_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and adds a clear parameter bound ('Date range must not exceed 30 days'), which is useful. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned statistics, whether any aggregation or filtering is applied, or other behavioral traits.

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 sentences, immediately states the action and resource, and introduces the key constraint. There is no filler or redundant content; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical limitation. However, it omits what the 'usage statistics' actually contain (e.g., counts, breakdowns) and any additional context such as authentication or rate limits, leaving the agent partially in the dark about expected results.

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 100%, as both parameters (start and end) have explicit descriptions including format examples. The description's phrase 'Date range' reiterates what the schema already conveys, adding no new semantic information about the parameters themselves.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and names a clear resource 'Linked API usage statistics'. It effectively communicates the tool's primary function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like admin_get_limits_usage, which might also return usage-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as admin_get_limits_usage or retrieve_performance. The only added instruction is a 30-day date-range limit, which is a constraint rather than context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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