bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_node_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses data-freshness behavior ('usage data is flushed to the database roughly every 2 minutes') and the threshold semantics, but it never clarifies that this POST is effectively a read operation, nor mentions auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the definition includes raw HTTP method/path, a 'Tags:' line, and a stray Russian pagination line that do not earn their place. Size is acceptable but structure is noisy.

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 and 5 parameters (nested body object), the description covers purpose and data freshness but omits usage guidance, response shape, and correctly-specified pagination. It is adequate to attempt a call but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively introduces confusion: it says 'Пагинация через query-параметры: start', yet the schema defines 'start' as a date bound, not a pagination cursor, and there is no other pagination parameter. This contradiction with the schema undermines rather than clarifies parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get users exceeding a traffic threshold on the given nodes for a period', and clarifies the exact predicate ('total usage ... >= minTotalBytes'). This is much clearer than a bare endpoint, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_stats_node_users_usage or bandwidth_stats_users_get_stats_nodes_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite several near-identical bandwidth-stats siblings. The trailing Russian line about pagination does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice, so usage context is essentially absent.

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