nodes_usage_history_get_stats_nodes_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 discloses only that this is a GET (read-only via the HTTP verb); it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the returned bandwidth data.

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 but poorly spent: it front-loads a raw HTTP path and a 'Tags' line that carry no agent-relevant information, and closes with an unrelated Russian sentence about pagination. Useful scope information is absent while noise occupies the whole description.

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, no annotations, and a crowded field of similar stats siblings, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how it differs from the alternatives. It instead leaves return values unexplained and mislabels a parameter, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description's only parameter statement ('Пагинация через query-параметры: start') actively misleads: 'start' is a required date-range bound per the schema, not a pagination cursor, and 'end'/'topNodesLimit' are never mentioned. The claim introduces confusion rather than 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 summary 'Get Nodes Usage by Range' states a verb (get) and resource (node usage), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no differentiation among the near-identical siblings bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_stats_nodes_usage, bandwidth_stats_users_get_stats_nodes_usage, and bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_node_usage. An agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the description alone.

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 at all. Given that roughly six sibling tools return node/user bandwidth statistics, the absence of any rule for choosing this one over bandwidth_stats_users_get_stats_nodes_usage or bandwidth_stats_nodes_get_node_usage is a real gap.

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