CDN response-time report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's '[READ]' tag merely repeats that. It adds the upstream source (ar-prometheus-exporter) and the METRICS_PERIOD reference, but says nothing about response shape, latency units, or aggregation that would go beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single terse line with the read tag front-loaded, so there is no padding. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, reading as an internal API note instead of an agent-facing definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the burden of explaining what a response-time report returns (metrics, units, time bucketing). Instead it only restates the HTTP route, leaving the agent without enough to know what it will get back.

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 only 50%: 'domain' has a regex but no prose, while 'period' is documented. The endpoint notation implies domain is a path parameter and period a query parameter, but it adds no meaning about what a domain must be or how period affects the output, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 title and endpoint string convey that this retrieves a CDN response-time report for a domain, so the verb+resource is inferable. However, it is expressed as a raw REST path dump rather than a statement of purpose, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_cdn_traffic_report or get_cdn_status_report.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling CDN report tools. An agent must guess whether this or get_cdn_traffic_report / get_cdn_geo_report is the right report for a given need.

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