Content Problems Scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the async nature ('This is an async operation') and the diagnostic read-only behavior via 'fetches content...to compare responses.' However, it does not explain how to retrieve results or any side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then provides use cases, and finally the async note. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

While the description covers purpose, use cases, and async behavior, it omits return/result details (not covered by an output schema) and any prerequisites or post-invocation steps. With six parameters and no annotations, more context would be needed for full invocation confidence.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description adds only the general context of 'for a URL' but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Runs Akamai content problem diagnostics for a URL' with specific method 'fetches content via cURL from both edge and origin to compare responses.' This distinguishes it from siblings like url_health_check and connectivity_problems by focusing on content comparison for cache and origin issues.

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 provides clear use cases: 'diagnosing cache inconsistencies, stale content, and origin errors.' This gives solid context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion.

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