assistantmail_get_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that usage is fetched and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what limits or units are returned, or how quota periods are calculated.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It does not include extra guidance or alternatives, but it is efficiently structured for the limited content it provides.

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 look-up tool, the description conveys the core purpose and the primary mailbox scope. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the agent is missing useful context about the return format, quota units, and when to choose the reference variant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely ties 'a mailbox' to the mailboxId parameter. It does not explain the apiKey parameter, its relationship to the request, or any mailboxId format requirements beyond what the schema already shows.

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 ('Gets') and the resource ('daily and monthly send quota usage for a mailbox'), so the agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling assistantmail_get_usage_reference, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the sibling assistantmail_get_usage_reference or any conditions that would make one tool preferable, so the agent is left without routing help.

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