panelica_bandwidth_get_v1_bandwidth_domains_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool gets bandwidth usage but does not explain what the usage represents (e.g., daily, aggregate, time range) or any limitations. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes redundant HTTP path lines and a category label that add noise without value. Slightly less concise than ideal.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain the return value structure. It does not, leaving agents uncertain about the response format. Additionally, it fails to distinguish itself from sibling bandwidth tools, making the context incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', but the description adds no additional meaning beyond 'path parameter: id'. It does not clarify the format or type of domain identifier expected, which is acceptable but not helpful.

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 clearly states the tool gets bandwidth usage for a domain, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like bandwidth_accounts or bandwidth_summary, which could cause confusion for an agent choosing between them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bandwidth_accounts or bandwidth_summary). It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios that make this tool the best choice.

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