panelica_bandwidth_get_v1_bandwidth_domains_id

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the required scope 'bandwidth:read', which is a useful behavioral requirement not present in the annotations, but does not discuss response format, pagination, or what units/period the bandwidth covers.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action 'Get domain bandwidth', followed by essential technical details (HTTP method, path, category, scopes, read-only flag). It is arguably terse but each line adds useful information.

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?

The output schema is absent, but for a simple read endpoint fetching bandwidth the description is mostly adequate. However, the tool name contains both 'domain' and 'summary' alternatives among siblings, and the description does not specify what bandwidth data is returned (e.g., time range, totals, per-day), which would help an agent understand the result without calling it.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is described as the path parameter. The description's HTTP path '/v1/bandwidth/domains/:id' reinforces the meaning of the id parameter, which is sufficient for a single straightforward parameter.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Get domain bandwidth' for a given domain ID. It distinguishes itself from the closely related panelica_bandwidth_get_v1_bandwidth_accounts_id and the summary endpoint by virtue of the 'domains/:id' path, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description provides the HTTP method, path, category, and required scopes, which imply when to use it (fetching bandwidth for a specific domain). However, it does not state when to prefer this over the sibling bandwidth endpoints or the logs/stat endpoints that may overlap.

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