bandwidth_nodes_users

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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say how the date range scopes the results, how many records come back, or what 'topUsersLimit' actually controls.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the scoping key front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema and a confusingly similar sibling set, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum clarify what is being aggregated, how the date window applies, and what topUsersLimit does.

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 only 50%: 'start' and 'end' are documented in the schema, but 'nodesUuids' and 'topUsersLimit' have no description anywhere. The only parameter-related text ('by Nodes UUIDs') merely restates the required array param already visible in the schema, and the semantics of the top-N limit are left entirely unstated.

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 gives a verb ('Get'), a resource ('Nodes Users Usage') and a scoping key ('by Nodes UUIDs'), so the general shape is understandable. However, 'Nodes Users Usage' is ambiguous — it could mean per-user traffic on nodes or top-user rankings per node (the 'topUsersLimit' param hints at the latter) — and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling 'bandwidth_node_users' or from 'bandwidth_nodes_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 at all. Given siblings such as 'bandwidth_node_users', 'bandwidth_nodes_usage', 'bandwidth_user_usage' and 'bandwidth_squad_user_usage', the agent has no stated basis for choosing this tool over the others.

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