panelica_bandwidth_get_v1_bandwidth_summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful operational constraint beyond the annotations: the required scope 'bandwidth:read', which tells the agent what authorization is needed. It also confirms the HTTP method as GET, consistent with the read-only hints.

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 extremely compact: a one-line summary followed by three short metadata lines. The action is front-loaded, and the HTTP path, scope requirement, and read-only indication each earn their place without filler.

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 parameterless, read-only summary endpoint, this is nearly complete: the HTTP path and required scope are present, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the summary contains (e.g., time range, units, or whether it covers all accounts/domains), leaving slight ambiguity about the returned meaning.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies because the schema and description cannot be expected to document anything further.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('bandwidth summary'), and the HTTP line pins it to GET /v1/bandwidth/summary. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling per-account and per-domain bandwidth endpoints, so the aggregate nature is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling bandwidth_accounts_id or bandwidth_domains_id endpoints. The only usage signal is the word 'summary', which implies an aggregate view, but no alternative is named and no selection condition is given.

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