Get Object Storage usage report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no indication of what the report covers, its time window, granularity, or whether it requires a specific plan/permission.

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?

It is short and non-redundant, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy. Front-loading the HTTP verb and path is of limited value to an agent choosing between tools.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the report returns, yet it says nothing about contents, metrics, or period. For a report-generation tool competing with several other report siblings, this is incomplete.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gap.

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 is essentially a REST route restatement: '[READ] OpenAPI: GET /v1/reports/storage on storage.arvanapis.ir'. It names the resource (storage report) but adds no articulation of subnet or scope, and gives no differentiation from the many other report siblings (get_cdn_status_report, get_cdn_traffic_report, get_bucket_metrics).

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 guidance, no excluded cases, and no named alternative among the report/metrics tools. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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