bandwidth_user_usage

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 externally. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond that – no return shape, no pagination, no mention of what the topNodesLimit affects – so it contributes nothing over the structured fields.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – it is effectively a restated title rather than a purposeful one-liner.

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, the description is far too thin: it omits what is returned, how the range and topNodesLimit shape the result, and any usage context. Annotations cover only the safety hint, so the description should do more.

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%, with userId, start, and end documented in the schema, but topNodesLimit has no description at all. The description provides no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving the undocumented parameter unexplained in both places.

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 phrase 'Get User Usage by Range' restates the tool name (bandwidth_user_usage) and only adds the notion of a date range. It conveys a read of per-user bandwidth over a time window, but it does not differentiate from close siblings such as bandwidth_squad_user_usage or bandwidth_node_users, which an agent must distinguish by name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like bandwidth_squad_user_usage. Usage is only weakly implied by the 'by Range' phrasing.

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