get_internal_squad_usage

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the >= minTotalBytes threshold filter, node scoping through internal squad inbounds, and a data-freshness caveat ('flushed to the database roughly every 2 minutes'). Pagination behavior is not mentioned, but the freshness note is genuinely valuable.

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?

Three sentences plus an endpoint tag, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and filtering behavior. The endpoint citation is somewhat redundant with the tool's operation but still compact and informative; no sentence is wasted.

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 is responsible for conveying what returns; it does so via the threshold and node-scoping explanation. Parameters are fully documented and the freshness caveat is included, though pagination/cursor behavior could be worth a sentence for a 6-param endpoint.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including minTotalBytes, cursor, limit, and dates. The description reinforces the minTotalBytes filter and node scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Get internal squad users traffic usage for a period') and clarifies the filtering semantics (>= minTotalBytes, scoped to nodes reachable via internal squad inbounds). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from very similar siblings like get_internal_squad_user_usage or get_stats_user_usage.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. Because get_internal_squad_user_usage is a near-identical sibling in the tool list, this omission is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to route between them.

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