Traffic By IP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether this is a read-only aggregation, what the default 1h window means, how top_n/sample_size/bucket_count shape the result, or any rate limits. 'Aggregated summary' is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key scoping fact front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool, but the dimension rewards efficiency.

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?

A tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain the aggregation model (time bucketing, top-N truncation, sampling) and return shape. The description supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only the 'ip' scope is implied; top_n, window, account, ip_field, sample_size, and bucket_count are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific output ('aggregated traffic summary') and a specific scope ('a single IP address'), which an agent can distinguish from group_by_ip (multi-IP grouping) or traffic_by_host. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only guidance is a parenthetical 'see search_logs', which points at a data source rather than explaining when to pick this over traffic_by_host, group_by_ip, or timeline. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are given.

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