panelica_bandwidth_get_v1_bandwidth_accounts_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a required scope (bandwidth:read) and states the HTTP method, but no contradiction; no extra behavioral context such as response content or rate limits.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose, route, category, scope, and read-only nature fit in four short lines. Slight redundancy exists because 'Read-only' repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, but the text is otherwise efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only endpoint with rich annotations, the description is adequate but not complete: it does not state what bandwidth data is returned, units, time range, or how this account-level call relates to bandwidth_summary/bandwidth_domains_id. Agents may still need to infer the intended response or sibling choice.

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% for the single id parameter. The route template /v1/bandwidth/accounts/:id reinforces that id is a path parameter, but the description does not add detail beyond the schema's minimal 'Path parameter: id'. Baseline 3 per high schema coverage.

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 states the tool gets account bandwidth, with a specific resource (accounts) and HTTP GET route. It distinguishes itself from sibling bandwidth_domains_id by the 'account' scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 explanation of when to use this endpoint versus the closely related panelica_bandwidth_get_v1_bandwidth_summary or panelica_bandwidth_get_v1_bandwidth_domains_id. The only guidance is 'account bandwidth' in the title and route, which is implied at best.

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