internal_squad_get_internal_squad_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful context: the scoping rule for which nodes count, the minTotalBytes filter semantics, and the fact that underlying usage data is flushed to the database roughly every 2 minutes (i.e., results can lag). It omits auth requirements and the actual return/pagination shape, so it is a partial disclosure.

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 content is reasonably short and the core sentence is front-loaded, but the definition is cluttered with a raw HTTP route line, a 'Tags:' line, and a stray Russian sentence about pagination that adds noise and is partly wrong.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description has to do more work, and it does cover the noteworthy traits (node scoping, minTotalBytes threshold, ~2-minute data flush lag). It still leaves the response shape, ordering, and true pagination behavior unaddressed, which matters for a cursor-paginated list 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 coverage is 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description's pagination note is actively misleading: it says pagination is via 'start, limit', while the schema uses 'limit' plus 'cursor' and 'start' is a date range bound, not an offset. This contradicts the structured parameter definitions rather than supplementing them, so it scores below the baseline.

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: fetches internal squad users' traffic usage over a period, scoped to nodes reachable via the squad's inbounds, filtered by minTotalBytes. Clear enough to act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling internal_squad_stats_get_internal_squad_usage, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 explains what the result set contains but never says when to choose this tool over the sibling internal_squad_stats_get_internal_squad_usage or the other internal_squad_* stats tools. No when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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