list_statistics_bandwidth

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail: the timespan is a 'dashboard timespan (1-6)', implying a range of periods. It does not disclose return format, aggregation level, or pagination, but given the annotations, the additional context is minor.

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 efficiently structured: a clear title line, the HTTP endpoint, followed by a bulleted argument list. Every sentence contributes, and the most important information (tool purpose and endpoint) is front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. Still, the description lacks context about what 'bandwidth statistics' means (e.g., aggregated vs. per-device, time series vs. totals) and the mapping of timespan values 1-6 to actual periods. It is minimally sufficient for a straightforward read-only endpoint, but an agent might need more context to interpret results correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides one-line explanations for all four: timespan (dashboard timespan 1-6), account_id (filter), device_id (filter), and lan (LAN-only traffic). This meaningfully exceeds the bare typed schema, though it leaves ambiguity about what the numeric timespan values represent.

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 states a specific resource ('Bandwidth Statistics') and the action ('Get'), and the tool name reinforces the list action. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list_statistics_resources because it names 'bandwidth' explicitly. However, it doesn't elaborate on the scope or content of the statistics, so it's clear but not richly differentiated.

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 implies when to use the tool: to retrieve bandwidth statistics, with optional filters for account, device, or LAN-only traffic. It provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_statistics_resources, nor does it mention any exclusions. This is adequate but not explicit.

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