CloudFront distribution overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: behaviors are returned in CloudFront match order with ordered behaviors first and the default last, and execute-api origins get their API Gateway name resolved. It stops short of stating any result-size or pagination behavior.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the return contents before moving to usage guidance, so an agent gets the most important information first. Every clause carries content, though the single long sentence is slightly heavy to parse.

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 carries the full burden of describing return shape and it does so thoroughly, including field-level detail and ordering semantics. It is nearly complete, lacking only edge-case notes such as result limits or how large distribution sets are handled.

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% and the single maxAgeSeconds parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its advisory freshness semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (all CloudFront distributions) and then enumerates exactly what is included per distribution: id, domain, aliases, origins, and each cache behavior with path pattern, target origin, cache policy, protocol and methods. This is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings such as get_cache_overview and get_api_routes.

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?

Explicitly names three usage contexts: answering which distribution/behavior serves a path and which origin it hits, checking before changing a path-based routing rule, and reviewing edge caching/HTTPS enforcement. It gives clear when-to-use guidance but names no alternative sibling or explicit exclusion.

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