Bandwidth usage by account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are sorted highest-first and default to the current month, both of which affect how the agent reads output. It does not discuss pagination behavior or data staleness, which would be needed for a 5.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core scope and sort order come first, followed by the default and the practical limit tip. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, default period, ordering, and a usage tactic. The only gap is that the return shape is not described at all, which is acceptable given no output schema exists but leaves the agent guessing at field names.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the month default and explains the practical meaning of a small limit, but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List bandwidth usage per account'), plus the granularity ('for one month') and ordering ('highest first'), which clearly separates it from whm_disk_usage and whm_account_resource_usage. It stops short of naming a sibling to route away from, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

'Defaults to the current month' sets the no-argument behavior, and 'Use a small limit to find the biggest consumers' is a concrete usage recipe that tells the agent how to get value quickly. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to an alternative tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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