Get CDN caching settings

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint so safety is clear. The [READ] tag and official GET endpoint add routing context but don't explain auth, output format, or rate limits beyond structured data.

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 precise sentences with no waste, front-loaded with the key verb and resource followed by the official endpoint for reference.

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 simple 1-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequately complete, though it could briefly note the response returns caching configuration details.

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 coverage is 0% for the single domain parameter, but the required domain is clearly indicated in both schema and endpoint path. The description doesn't significantly enrich meaning beyond what the schema enforces, making baseline 3 appropriate for 1 parameter.

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) and resource (caching settings for a domain), clear enough to distinguish from update_caching_settings and purge_cache among siblings.

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 [READ] prefix and GET endpoint imply usage contexts but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives beyond what the description states.

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