bunny_get_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying time-series output, the included metrics, and the hourly data option. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then returning useful detail about output metrics and granularity. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: scope, date range, return metrics, and granularity. It does not spell out exact response shape or default date behavior, but the optional parameters and full schema descriptions mitigate that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by framing the tool as account-wide or per-pull-zone, which maps to the pull_zone parameter, and by clarifying that hourly=true produces granular data.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('CDN statistics'), and scope ('account-wide or per-pull-zone'). It also lists the returned metric categories, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling statistics tools like origin errors or billing.

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 description gives useful context: CDN statistics over a date range, with an hourly granularity option. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as bunny_get_mc_app_statistics, bunny_get_origin_errors, or bunny_get_dns_statistics, nor does it state any exclusions.

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