get_stats_nodes_users_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond reiterating readability via '[READ]', and it omits pagination/return-shape context for a stats endpoint with a topUsersLimit parameter.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the action leading. The trailing endpoint/method tag is marginally useful for confirming a POST-based read but borders on noise.

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 nested-body stats tool surrounded by many similar usage/stat tools, the description does too little: it neither disambiguates from siblings nor clarifies the nested nodesUuids body or the topUsersLimit cap. Read-only annotations and the schema carry most of the load, but routing context 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so most parameters (start, end, body/nodesUuids) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning and leaves topUsersLimit, the undocumented 25%, unexplained in either place; baseline 3 fits given the decent coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get Nodes Users Usage') and a scoping dimension ('by Nodes UUIDs'), which tells an agent roughly what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as get_stats_node_users_usage, get_stats_nodes_usage, or get_stats_user_usage, so the agent cannot confidently pick this one over the others.

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 when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives despite several overlapping stats siblings. The '[READ] POST /api/bandwidth-stats/nodes/users' fragment is endpoint metadata, not usage guidance.

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