nexus_get_user_monthly_report

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable context by warning that privacy-restricted accounts may receive a permissions-related error, explicitly framing that as an API-side restriction rather than a tool failure. It also documents the expected JSON return structure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into a clear flow: what it does, how it relates to the summary tool, who should use it, a caveat about permissions, and the return shape. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema content.

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 three-parameter read-only tool, the definition covers purpose, parameter selection context, return format, and an important error condition. The only notable gap is not addressing the sibling nexus_get_user_monthly_report_by_id, leaving the agent to infer why this tool should be preferred for a specific report.

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%, so the input schema already explains all three required parameters: account_id, year, and month. The description adds only marginal context, such as 'per-mod/per-game values' and 'chosen month,' but does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the download/upload numbers for ONE specific month via v2 GraphQL.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from nexus_get_user_monthly_summary by explaining that summary lists available months while this tool fetches actual per-mod/per-game values. This gives agents a clear identity for the tool.

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 clearly positions the tool as a companion to nexus_get_user_monthly_summary and tells the agent this is the right choice after choosing a month. It also gives a concrete use case: tracking your own mod's download history. However, it does not explicitly mention the similarly named sibling nexus_get_user_monthly_report_by_id or state when not to use it.

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