Get CDN resource

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

Annotations already mark the call as readOnly=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the specific subset of settings that can be inspected (image_processing_enabled, location_mode, hls_support_enabled, etc.) and points to the customer panel as the source of truth for the same switches. No annotation contradiction; the read-only nature is consistent.

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?

Three sentences: purpose and data areas, usage guidance with examples, and external panel link. Each sentence adds distinct information and the main verb+object is front-loaded. Slightly long due to the enumerated flags, but they earn their place by showing the exact fields that matter.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, this is complete. It states the resource type, enumerates returned categories, provides a decision rule (check before proposing changes), and references the external UI. No output schema is present, but the field list and safety annotations cover the agent's needs.

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?

The schema fully documents resource_id as the aCDN resource (pull zone) ID, so the description doesn't need to restate it. It complements the schema by explaining what details are returned once the ID is supplied, though it doesn't describe parameter formatting or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Get full details of one Anycast CDN resource (pull zone)', which names the exact verb, resource, and scope. It lists key data areas (origin, TTLs, compression, origin shield, domains, locations) and distinguishes itself from siblings via 'one' and 'Anycast CDN' (vs list_cdn_resources and get_vcdn_resource).

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 second sentence states a clear invocation context: 'Check here whether a feature is on before proposing changes' with concrete flag examples. This tells an agent when to call this tool rather than relying on memory or assuming defaults. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough to route correctly.

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