Connectivity Problems Scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is async and that multiple tools run simultaneously. However, it does not mention result format, potential side effects, or whether special permissions are needed, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a concrete use case. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, which increases the burden on the description. While it explains the diagnostic purpose and async behavior, it does not describe the return value format or any prerequisites for successful use. More detail would be needed for full completeness given the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that parameters like port and clientIp are used for MTR, and requestHeaders for cURL, but it does not explain individual parameters beyond the schema. It does not fully compensate for the variety of parameters, though the schema already documents them.

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 clearly states the tool runs Akamai connectivity diagnostics for a URL and specifies the three simultaneous operations (GREP, cURL, MTR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mtr_from_edge, grep_edge_logs, and curl_from_edge by presenting a combined diagnostic.

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 a specific use case: diagnosing slow downloads and high response times. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over single-purpose siblings.

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