Get usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it is a 'current' snapshot scoped to 'this API key,' implying that results may reflect live plan state for the caller's key rather than arbitrary workspace data.

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 contributes to identifying what is fetched and for whom.

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?

This is a simple read-only, no-parameter tool with rich annotations. The description conveys the core return subject (usage and limits) and scope (current, per API key), which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without needing output schema details.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for such tools. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist; its statement about the API key scope is sufficient context.

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 names the verb (get), resource (Svara plan usage and limits), and scope (current, for this API key). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like upload_audio or send_linkedin_voice_note, which involve creating or sending rather than reading plan state.

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 clear context: use this when you need current plan usage and limits tied to the API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the zero-parameter read nature and sibling differentiation make the intended usage obvious.

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