Get CDN Bandwidth Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate these. It adds the scope 'for an environment', but this is also evident from the required env_id parameter. No additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth, return format) are provided, but since annotations cover safety, the description adds minimal but non-contradictory value.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words. This is an ideal level of conciseness for a tool description.

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 description is incomplete for an analytics tool with multiple parameters and many close siblings. It does not explain how the date parameters (from/to) interact with time_span, what the response format is, or how it differs from kinsta_analytics_cdn-bandwidth-usage. Given no output schema and no guidance, an agent may not know how to correctly construct a request or interpret results.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description itself does not mention any parameters, so it adds no extra meaning. The missing description for time_span is somewhat mitigated by its self-explanatory enum values. With moderate coverage and no compensatory description, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('CDN bandwidth analytics'), which is distinct from general analytics tools like visits or disk-space. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'kinsta_analytics_cdn-bandwidth-usage', which appears to serve a nearly identical purpose. The purpose is clear in isolation but ambiguous within the set of similar analytics tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the -usage variant or any other related analytics tools, nor does it explain conditions that would favor one over another. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large number of sibling analytics tools.

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