get_dns_analytics_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') but reveals nothing about what period the report covers, whether it is aggregated or time-bounded, output shape, pagination, or any authorization or quota considerations. For a reporting tool, this is a substantial gap.

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?

Seven words, one sentence, verb front-loaded, zero filler — it is efficiently structured. It sacrifices useful context for brevity, but as a stylistic matter there is no wasted 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and roughly 500 siblings including several analytics tools, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what the report contains, what time range it spans, or how it differs from get_zone_analytics and get_dns_firewall_analytics, so an agent cannot confidently select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single parameter zone_id is already documented as 'The zone ID'. The description's 'for a zone' reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('DNS analytics report'), and scope ('for a zone'), so an agent understands the core action and target. However, it does not differentiate from several closely related sibling analytics tools (get_zone_analytics, get_dns_firewall_analytics, get_analytics_by_colo, graphql_analytics), leaving ambiguity about what makes this report DNS-specific.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions get_zone_analytics, graphql_analytics, or get_dns_firewall_analytics, nor any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent must guess which analytics tool fits its task.

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