CDN HTTP status-code report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so '[READ]' is redundant. The only extra information is the underlying data source ('ar-prometheus-exporter') and the literal API path, which is structural rather than behavioral. No details on auth needs, rate limits, report latency, or output shape are provided.

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 text is short, but it is front-loaded with a redundant '[READ]' tag and then a raw endpoint notation rather than a meaningful statement of purpose. The one line is under-specified rather than concise: it omits what the tool does and how the returned report should be interpreted.

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 two-parameter report tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what the status-code report contains, how the required domain is validated, or how the period affects results, leaving an agent unable to confidently select or invoke it among many similar report tools.

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%: the period parameter is documented in the schema, but the required domain parameter has no description. The description references '?period=' but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already says; it does nothing to compensate for the missing domain documentation. The agent learns nothing new about parameter behavior from the description.

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 is essentially an API path notation ('GET /domains/{domain}/reports/status') with a source tag, which restates the tool name/title rather than stating the purpose in agent-facing terms. It does not distinguish this status-code report from sibling CDN reports like get_cdn_traffic_report or get_cdn_response_time_report. An agent gets only a hint from the title, not from the description itself.

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 alternatives. The description provides no context for choosing this report over the other CDN report siblings. The '[READ]' tag is a static marker, not usage guidance.

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