get_bandwidth_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope (account-wide vs per-VPS) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, time range, or aggregation method. With annotations covering the key traits, 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, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key scoping detail is placed at the start.

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-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, this description is complete. It tells exactly what the tool does and its scope. No output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return fields; 'overview' is sufficiently self-explanatory.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds nothing about parameters (there are none) and the schema already fully covers this (100% coverage).

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?

States a specific verb ('get'), resource ('bandwidth usage overview'), and scope ('Account-wide... across every VPS'). This clearly distinguishes it from per-VPS tools like get_vps_bandwidth_history and get_vps_stats without needing to open 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 phrase 'Account-wide... across every VPS' gives clear context that this is for aggregate usage, implying it is not for per-VPS queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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