b2_egress_leaders

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: results are derived from daily usage reports, scope follows the caller's key, and Usage Reports must be enabled. This meaningfully prepares an agent for how the tool behaves in practice.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the primary action and default are front-loaded, followed by use cases and then important operational constraints. Every sentence adds information needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no required fields, this description is complete: it covers what is ranked, the possible grouping, the default time window, the output concept (leaders with egress share), the data source, authorization scoping, and a prerequisite. An agent can confidently invoke and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that 'account'/'bucket' maps to the 'by' parameter, that omitting 'days' means month-to-date, and that the result focuses on each leader's share of total egress. It does not discuss the limit parameter, but the schema already covers that.

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 verb ('Rank top egress') with a clear resource (downloaded bytes by account or bucket) and time scope (default month-to-date). It explicitly names the use cases ('who's downloading the most', 'where is egress concentrated'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like b2_largest_files and b2_usage_growth.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: ranking egress leaders by account/bucket over a period, with a default month-to-date window. It also notes the prerequisite that Usage Reports must be enabled, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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