get_internal_squad_user_usage

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/no-destruction profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are zero-filled for every day in the range, users below the threshold are filtered out, and data is flushed roughly every 2 minutes (latency/freshness). It does not disclose pagination or output shape, holding it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then supporting constraints. Sentences earn their place, though the reference to a nonexistent minTotalBytes parameter and the endpoint line add minor noise. Efficient overall.

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 stats tool with no output schema and an annotation-covered safety profile, the description covers return semantics (zero-filled daily series, threshold filtering) and data freshness. The dangling minTotalBytes reference is a real gap, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 75%, so start/end and squadUuid are already documented in the schema; userId is undocumented there. The description references minTotalBytes filtering and node scoping, but minTotalBytes does not appear in the schema parameters at all, leaving a semantic mismatch and confusion about where the threshold comes from. Roughly baseline value.

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 (Get) and resource (single user daily traffic usage on internal squad nodes for a period). The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from close siblings like get_internal_squad_usage (squad-scoped), get_stats_user_usage and get_stats_node_users_usage (global scoping). The agent can identify exactly what is returned.

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 clarifies that results are restricted to nodes reachable via Internal Squad inbounds and that users with total usage >= minTotalBytes are included, which implies when to use this over broader stats tools. But it never names an alternative or states when-not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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