Get Monthly CDN Bandwidth Usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only the time-scoping detail ('this month's') and 'billable' framing, but says nothing about aggregation or return format. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with zero wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every token earns its place and no information is redundant.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate, and there is no output schema to document. However, given the close sibling ambiguity (cdn-bandwidth vs cdn-bandwidth-usage), the lack of disambiguation leaves a completeness gap that could cause mis-selection.

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 100% since the single parameter site_id is documented as 'The site ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but per the baseline, a 3 is correct when the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('CDN bandwidth usage'), and adds scoping qualifiers ('this month's billable') plus scope ('for a site'). This is clear and meaningfully distinct from the sibling kinsta_analytics_bandwidth. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very close sibling kinsta_analytics_cdn-bandwidth, which differs only by the '-usage' suffix.

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 phrase 'this month's billable' implies a billing-oriented use case, providing some context. But with four near-identical analytics siblings (bandwidth, bandwidth-usage, cdn-bandwidth, cdn-bandwidth-usage), there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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