CDN high-request IPs report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag adds nothing. The description does contribute one piece of behavioral context beyond annotations: the plan-tier gate (Professional+). It says nothing about data source freshness, cardinality of returned IPs, or rate limits.

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 line that opens with the [READ] marker and packs endpoint, parameter, and plan gate without filler. It is efficient, though the API-jargon framing ('OpenAPI + ar-prometheus-exporter') costs a little clarity for the space it uses.

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 read-only report tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the essentials are present (what it fetches, plan gate). It is still thin on what the report actually contains (top IPs, ordering, counts) and on how it relates to the other CDN report siblings, leaving an agent to infer selection.

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 50%: 'period' is fully documented in the schema (enum, default, description), while 'domain' has no description but a self-explanatory name and pattern. The description merely echoes the period query string and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 endpoint path '/domains/{domain}/reports/high-request-ips' plus the title state a specific resource (a report of IPs generating high request volume) for a specific domain. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but the description never contrasts itself with the many sibling CDN report tools (traffic, visitors, geo, response-time).

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 only usage-relevant content is the '(Professional+ plans)' prerequisite, which is useful. There is no statement of when to prefer this report over get_cdn_traffic_report or the other CDN reports, and no exclusions or context for the period parameter's intended use.

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