Get Akamai Error Statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the time range and edge/origin breakdown but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. The term 'Returns' implies a safe read operation, which is helpful but not fully explicit.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and output; the second adds key scope (edge/origin, time window). Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return structure and constraints more thoroughly. It covers return categories and time range but omits that at least one of url/cpCode is required (even though the schema marks none required) and does not describe the response format. The tool is moderately complex with 4 optional parameters, so these gaps are notable.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including enums. The tool description adds the 24-48h time window and clarifies edge/origin error types, but the schema already handles most parameter semantics, so the added value is marginal.

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 returns HTTP error statistics (status code distribution, error percentages) for a URL or CP code, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like url_health_check or curl_from_edge.

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 implies when to use the tool (when error statistics for a URL/CP code are needed over a 24-48h window) but provides no explicit exclusions or comparison with alternatives. An agent is left to infer selection from context rather than receiving direct guidance.

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