bandwidth_nodes_usage_threshold

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

Annotations already declare a safe read operation, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — a ~2 minute data-flush latency caveat that tells the agent results may lag by up to two minutes, and an exact restatement of the aggregation rule (total usage over the period on the given nodes).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with no filler. Sentence 2 slightly restates sentence 1's threshold idea, a minor redundancy, but it earns its place by tying the rule to the minTotalBytes parameter.

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, but the description tells the agent what is returned (the set of users meeting the threshold). It stops short of describing the return fields (e.g., identifier and usage amount) or any result cap, which would fully close the gap for a 4-parameter query 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%, so the 3 baseline applies, but the description adds real meaning: minTotalBytes is applied to the user's total usage summed across the given nodes over the period, not per-node, which is aggregation semantics 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?

States a specific verb (Get) plus resource (users exceeding a traffic threshold) and scope (on the given nodes for a period), which distinguishes it from the other bandwidth_* siblings that lack a threshold concept. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 threshold framing implies when the tool is useful (finding heavy users), and the flush-latency note implies when the data is not suitable, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or reference to siblings like bandwidth_nodes_usage.

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