umbrella_total_requests

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core read-only aggregation behavior and optional breakdown, but it does not mention response shape, pagination behavior, or any caveats around the additionalParams escape hatch. For a reporting tool this is minimally adequate, but not richly transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that states the core purpose first and adds the optional breakdown without wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 schema is rich enough for parameter usage, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the response shape and paging behavior unstated. It is barely sufficient for a simple count query, but an agent would benefit from knowing what the returned totals look like and how limit/offset apply.

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%, and the schema already explains from, to, limit, offset, trafficType, and additionalParams in reasonable detail. The description only restates the time-range and traffic-type grouping, so it adds no real semantic value beyond the input schema.

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 identifies the resource (DNS/proxy/firewall request counts), the operation (totaling over a time range), and an optional grouping dimension (traffic type). It is much more specific than most sibling tool names, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from similar-looking tools like umbrella_api_usage_requests.

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 implies usage for aggregate request-volume reporting and mentions the time-range and optional traffic-type breakdown. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not point to alternatives such as umbrella_activity for raw events or umbrella_api_usage_requests for API-specific usage.

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