get_proxy_usage

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to cover those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns no credentials and mirrors the dashboard usage chart, which helps an agent set expectations about data source and security posture.

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 tightly written: it leads with the core function, then provides use cases and a routing note, and ends with security-relevant clarifications. Every sentence adds value and none restate the tool name or padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job clarifying what the agent will get: a period total, per-bucket figures, and values equivalent to the dashboard chart. It covers intended usage and the key distinction from sibling tools. Minor missing details like units or exact response formatting are not critical because the schema documents parameters well and the dashboard reference grounds expectations.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. The phrase about period totals and per-bucket figures aligns with the period and include_buckets parameters, but the main description adds no new parameter-level guidance beyond the 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 action (get bandwidth used), the resource (one Evomi proxy product), the time ranges (24h/3d/7d), and the result shape (period total plus per-bucket figures). It also differentiates itself from list_proxy_products by explicitly stating it is for usage, not remaining balance, and stresses that it returns no credentials.

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 states concrete use cases: 'how much traffic have I used', spend checks, and usage trends. It gives an explicit alternative, list_proxy_products, for a different question (balance left), and clarifies that credentials are not provided — which routes an agent away from using this tool for credential retrieval.

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