List order resource usage metrics

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: suspended and deleted websites are excluded, values may be up to one hour stale, and disk/inode usage is intentionally out of scope. This gives the agent accurate expectations about data freshness and coverage.

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 four focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds exclusions, freshness, and routing information, with every sentence contributing useful operational context.

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 read-only metrics tool with two well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, what is excluded, how fresh the data is, and where to go for related metrics. No critical information needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds only general context like 'selected time frame' and 'each website is identified by uid', which does not materially deepen parameter understanding beyond 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 verb and resource: it returns aggregated CPU, memory, and process usage for an Agency Plan order, plus quotas and a per-website breakdown. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the disk-usage-metrics endpoint, making it easy to separate from sibling tools.

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 makes the primary use case clear and explicitly redirects disk and inode usage queries to the disk-usage-metrics endpoint. It does not name other alternative metrics tools like the per-website process list, but the main exclusion is well covered.

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