Get user traffic 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 real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the result and, importantly, that the time window narrows only the per-node breakdown while totals remain all-time.

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?

Two tight sentences: the return payload first, then the parameter scoping rule. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description nonetheless summarizes them. Combined with annotations covering safety, the definition gives an agent enough to call this correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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 coverage is 67%, and the description closes the main gap by stating that start/end are ISO datetimes and that omitting both yields all-time figures. It adds scope semantics (which part of the response is filtered) that the schema does not express.

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?

A specific verb ('Reports how much data a user has used') plus an enumeration of exactly what is returned: total, lifetime total, current limit, and per-node breakdown. This distinguishes it cleanly from marzban_users_get (user record) and marzban_users_list.

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 when to supply start/end versus omitting them, which is genuine usage guidance for the parameters. It never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as marzban_users_get, so tool-level selection guidance is left implicit.

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