bandwidth_nodes_usage

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no aggregation granularity, no scoping, no note on whether the result is per-node or totaled, and no indication of result size behavior despite the topNodesLimit parameter.

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?

Five words, front-loaded, no filler or redundancy. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness; the single phrase has no room to earn its place beyond restating the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to characterize what the tool returns, and it does not; 'usage' is left undefined. Given a three-parameter analytics tool sitting among many overlapping bandwidth siblings, an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently or interpret its results.

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 description coverage is 100%: start, end, and topNodesLimit all carry their own descriptions and formats, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by Range' only loosely gestures at the date parameters and adds no syntax, timezone, or limit semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 restates the tool name ('bandwidth_nodes_usage' -> 'Get Nodes Usage') and adds only the modifier 'by Range', which merely echoes the required start/end dates. It gives no indication of what 'usage' means (traffic, bytes, requests, connections) and does nothing to separate it from bandwidth_node_users, bandwidth_nodes_users, bandwidth_nodes_usage_threshold, bandwidth_user_usage, or bandwidth_squad_usage.

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, no stated conditions, and no mention of any alternative. With roughly a dozen bandwidth/system stat siblings in the list, an agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over bandwidth_nodes_users or system_bandwidth_stats.

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