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 the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the report includes per-node breakdowns and that the breakdown can be filtered by period, which helps the agent set expectations without needing to inspect output structure further.

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 tightly written sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by parameter usage guidance, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only usage query with an output schema already present, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what is reported, which parameters affect the report, and what happens when the optional parameters are omitted. No critical behavioral or invocation details are 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?

The schema already documents start and end as optional ISO datetimes, covering 67% of parameters, and the description reinforces this with the specific rule 'omit both for all-time.' This adds semantic context about how the two time parameters interact, which is valuable beyond the individual schema descriptions. The username parameter is only constrained by schema pattern, but the description's focus on usage makes its role clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') and names the resource ('data a user has used'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: total, lifetime total, current limit, and per-node breakdown. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like marzban_users_get or marzban_users_list, which focus on user configuration rather than traffic statistics.

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 clearly explains how to use the optional start/end parameters and explicitly states the all-time behavior when both are omitted. It does not name alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool, but the usage context is evident from the description and the readOnly annotation, so the guidance is adequate.

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