getTrafficDistribution

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

With no annotations, the description communicates that this is a read-only retrieval of traffic data over a time range, with no mention of destructive side effects. It adds context on timestamp format but could be more explicit about its non-modifying nature.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the purpose and providing context on what the breakdown reveals. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at the output shape (breakdown by category) and time range constraints. It is fairly complete for a retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, though output structure could be more explicit.

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 4 parameters (siteId, customHeaders, start, end) with descriptions. The description only reiterates the timestamp format already in the schema, adding no significant new meaning beyond the structured data.

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 states it retrieves traffic distribution by protocol and application type over a time range, with a specific breakdown by categories like video and gaming. This differentiates it from sibling tools such as getDashboardTrafficActivities.

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 identifying bandwidth consumption but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getDashboardTrafficActivities or other traffic-related tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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