get_dns_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what the report returns and that it is read-oriented, but it does not disclose operational traits such as read-only status, default time range behavior, or data availability 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?

Two sentences lead with the action and resource, then the return contents, then a use case. Every sentence provides information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The definition gives enough to call the tool correctly: zone_id is the only required parameter and the return categories are stated. It would be more complete with default-date behavior and output format, but those are minor for this simple report tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents zone_id, since, and until. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond naming the zone and output categories, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DNS query analytics report... for a Cloudflare zone'), and names concrete return contents (query counts, response codes, query type distributions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dns_records or get_domain_intel without ambiguity.

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?

'Useful for detecting DNS anomalies and attack patterns' gives a clear use context for the report. It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is explicit enough to guide selection.

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