bandwidth_squad_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema context: that the listing is threshold-filtered, that scope is restricted to nodes reachable through the squad's inbounds, and — most valuable — that usage data is only flushed to the database roughly every 2 minutes, which tells the agent results can lag. It stops short of describing pagination or the shape of returned user records.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most decision-relevant detail. Minor noise: "on the given nodes" references nodes that are not actually a parameter, which slightly muddies an otherwise efficient phrasing.

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?

With a fully described six-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, the inclusion threshold, the node scoping derived from the squad, and the data-freshness caveat. Nothing about correct invocation is left unresolved, aside from sibling disambiguation handled in the usage dimension.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates minTotalBytes semantics ("total usage over the period on the given nodes is >= minTotalBytes") but adds no format, unit, or edge-case detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Get internal squad users traffic usage for a period," and clarifies the result scope (users above minTotalBytes, limited to nodes reachable via the squad's inbounds). However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling bandwidth_squad_user_usage or from bandwidth_user_usage, so an agent still has to guess which of the two squad-usage tools to pick.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. Given a sibling literally named bandwidth_squad_user_usage plus bandwidth_user_usage and bandwidth_nodes_usage, the absence of disambiguation is a real selection hazard rather than a minor omission.

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