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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description usefully adds that results are daily-granularity charts and maps to a specific API endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, response shape, or how large date ranges affect payload size.

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?

Two compact sentences with the return content front-loaded and the API mapping appended. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of stating what comes back (daily charts of usage and file count). It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; the only gap is not addressing the default date window or result volume, which the schema partially covers.

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 100%, so date_from/date_to formats, defaults (omit both for last 30 days), and the required storage_zone_id are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (storage used and file count for one storage zone) and the granularity (daily charts), plus the underlying GET endpoint. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling bunny_get_statistics, which is the most likely confusion point.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. An agent must infer that this is the storage-zone-specific counterpart to bunny_get_statistics, and nothing in the description resolves that overlap or states prerequisites such as needing a valid storage zone ID.

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