get_traffic_summary

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only operation,' matching the readOnlyHint annotation, and adds useful behavioral context about the output scope: overall throughput and totals without per-app or time-series detail. It does not describe error behavior or exact return fields, but for a simple read-only summary tool the added context is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then differentiates from alternatives, then documents arguments. The Args block is redundant with the input schema, but the overall structure is clear and easy to scan, with no wasted filler.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters, clear defaults, read-only semantics, and enough return-shape information (condensed traffic-volume summary, overall throughput and totals) to set expectations. The description also names alternatives, so an agent can select it confidently without additional context.

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 the description's Args section merely restates the schema text for 'site' and 'device' without adding new semantics. The schema already documents defaults and optionality, so the description adds no extra parameter value beyond what structured data provides.

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 a condensed traffic-volume summary for a site.' It further clarifies what the tool is not (no per-app or time-series detail), which helps distinguish it from traffic-related siblings without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 alternatives and their appropriate use cases: get_dpi_stats for application-level breakdown, get_traffic_analysis for windowed trends and top talkers, and get_client_traffic for a specific client. This gives the 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.