get_dpi_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation.' It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by explaining that results are ranked by detected application/category, which tells the agent what kind of analysis the output supports. It does not go into return format or aggregation details, but the read-only safety profile is clearly covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by read-only context and alternative tools, and ends with a clean Args section. It is reasonably concise, though the Args section largely repeats the schema descriptions that are already present.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context that an agent knows what the tool returns (application/category breakdown ranking) and when to use it. It does not detail the exact output fields or time window, but all parameters are fully documented and the tool's role among siblings is clear.

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%, and both site and device are already documented in the input schema with the same wording. The description's Args section duplicates this information rather than adding new semantic detail, so a 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return Deep Packet Inspection application-breakdown statistics for a site.' It further clarifies that it ranks traffic by detected application/category, making the tool's role distinct from traffic summary, time-windowed analysis, and per-client DPI views.

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 explicitly names sibling alternatives and the conditions under which they should be used: 'Use get_traffic_summary for a lighter volume-only overview, get_traffic_analysis for time-windowed trends and top talkers, or get_client_traffic for a single client's DPI view.' This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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