bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_stats_node_users_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the HTTP method/path and a controller tag, saying nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, result size, or the meaning of the returned data. Worse, the pagination claim ('Пагинация через query-параметры: start') is likely inaccurate since 'start' is a required date bound, so the one behavioral hint it gives may mislead.

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 text is short and front-loads the core operation, but it spends half its length on low-value boilerplate (raw route, 'Tags: Bandwidth Stats Controller') and includes the misleading pagination sentence instead of useful information.

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 4 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context and it is insufficient: it never explains what usage dimensions are returned, how the date range is applied, or what topUsersLimit controls.

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 only 50%: 'start', 'end', and 'uuid' are documented in the schema, but 'topUsersLimit' (default 100, minimum 1) is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no clarifying meaning for any parameter and actively mislabels 'start' as a pagination parameter rather than a date range bound.

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 states a verb and resource ('Get Node Users Usage by Node UUID'), but it is largely a restatement of the tool name and raw HTTP path. It does not explain what 'users usage' actually returns (per-user traffic? per-user connection counts?) nor differentiate it from the near-identical siblings bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_node_usage and bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_stats_nodes_users_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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives despite three closely-named sibling bandwidth-stats tools. The only usage note is the Russian sentence claiming pagination via 'start', which is not an exclusion or selection criterion.

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