cdn_detect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses a monetary cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) but gives no indication of what actions are performed, what inputs are required, or what outputs can be expected.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of two sentence fragments that fail to convey the tool's core function, and the cost mention does not compensate for the absence of 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what CDN detection entails, how it relates to other security/network tools, or what value it provides, leaving a critical gap for an agent to use it correctly.

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 contains only a generic 'params' object with no tool-specific fields. The description does not clarify what parameters should be passed, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the schema's generic 'Tool parameters as JSON object.'

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 'Security & Network tool' only assigns a broad category and does not state what the tool actually does. The name 'cdn_detect' hints at CDN detection, but the description lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or port_check.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or when to prefer an alternative. The description provides no context for selection among the many network/security siblings.

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