bandwidth_squad_user_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 useful operational context — zero-filled days and a ~2 minute flush cadence — but also asserts a minTotalBytes threshold that does not exist in the schema, which muddies the behavioral picture.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences carry real information, but the minTotalBytes sentence is wasted at best and misleading at worst, and 'Get a single user' conflicts with 'Returns users whose total usage...', signaling a list result.

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 no output schema, the description does explain return semantics (per-day, zero-filled, threshold-filtered), which is valuable. However the singular/plural mismatch leaves the cardinality of the result ambiguous, and the phantom threshold parameter is unexplained.

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 75% (userId is undocumented), so the description should compensate, yet it says nothing about userId and instead introduces minTotalBytes, a parameter absent from the schema. That phantom parameter can send an agent hunting for an argument it cannot supply, which is worse than silence.

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 a single user daily traffic usage on the internal squad nodes for a period.' This distinguishes it from squad-level (bandwidth_squad_usage) and node-level (bandwidth_nodes_users) siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly. The scope 'internal squad nodes' is concrete.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as bandwidth_squad_usage or bandwidth_user_usage for other granularities. The agent must infer applicability from the resource name alone.

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