get_top_clients_by_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: the start_at parameter has a maximum 1-month range. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or how data freshness is handled. The description gives moderate behavioral context but misses several important aspects.

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 extremely concise: one line for the main purpose followed by a structured Args section with one line per parameter. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and the ranking criterion. The existence of an output schema likely documents return values. However, it lacks information on error conditions, prerequisites, or any special behavior (e.g., default filtering). Still, for a focused aggregation tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 is the only source for parameter meanings. It explains each parameter: site_id/site_name for filtering, start_at/end_at with RFC 3339 format, and limit with range 1-100 and default 5. This adds significant value beyond the schema's basic type/default info. It could be improved by clarifying behavior when both site_id and site_name are provided.

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 clearly states the tool 'Get top clients ranked by bandwidth usage', specifying the verb 'Get', resource 'top clients', and ranking criterion 'by bandwidth usage'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clients (which lists all clients) and get_clients_trend (which likely shows trends).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for similar tasks. While the purpose is clear, there is no context about selection criteria among sibling tools.

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