Get bandwidth usage breakdown by traffic source

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: data is available from March 9, 2025 onwards, queries for earlier dates return a 400 error, and it returns hourly data points. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is concise at 5 sentences, with the main purpose stated upfront. Each sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. Minor improvement could combine the first two sentences.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspect (date availability) and mentions the API endpoint. However, with no output schema, it could describe the return structure (e.g., fields in hourly data points) or pagination behavior. It is minimally adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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%, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'one or more resources' (relating to the `resource` parameter) and the date constraint affecting `startTime`/`endTime`, but does not elaborate on formats or provide significant enrichment.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: get bandwidth usage breakdown by traffic source. It specifies the traffic sources (HTTP, WebSocket, NAT, PrivateLink) and mentions hourly data points, distinguishing it from the sibling tool `render_get_bandwidth` which likely provides total bandwidth without breakdown.

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 provides clear context for usage: it's for retrieving bandwidth usage broken down by traffic source for one or more resources. It mentions the date constraint and error for earlier queries, but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like `render_get_bandwidth` or state when not to use it.

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