list_billing_traffic

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states the tool returns traffic data (read-only implied) and specific fields. It does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Lacks explicit read-only hint but is transparent enough for a simple list operation.

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?

Two concise sentences: first covers purpose and scope, second specifies return content and mentions FOCUS alternative. No filler, front-loaded, efficient.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return format; it does so adequately (per-datacenter, per-NIC, bytes). It mentions required contract parameter but does not detail error handling or structure. Complete enough for a straightforward read tool.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'contract', including source from get_billing_profile. Description adds no further detail beyond repeating 'for your contract'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'network traffic data', scope 'for your contract for the current billing month', and specifies return details (per-datacenter and per-NIC traffic in bytes). It also notes an alternative for FOCUS output. This distinguishes it from sibling like list_billing_traffic_by_period.

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?

Description implies use for current billing month and mentions an alternative resource for FOCUS compliance. It does not explicitly exclude use for other periods or mention when not to use, but the scope is clear.

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