cf_query_http_requests_raw

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

The description discloses the API method (POST /graphql) and dataset, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or what side effects exist. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and while it implies read-only ('Raw HTTP request rows'), it lacks explicit safety guarantees or behavioral constraints.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it relies on an external reference (cf_query_firewall_events_raw) for parameter details, which could be improved by brief inline descriptions. Still, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary words.

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 tool has a complex input schema (7 parameters, 3 required) and no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain how to construct the filters, cursor, or verbose flag. While an output schema exists, the description references another tool for return shape, which may cause confusion. More context around pagination and filter syntax would improve completeness.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description does not compensate; it only says 'Args, returns: see cf_query_firewall_events_raw.' This does not provide any semantic meaning for the 7 parameters, leaving the agent to guess their formats and constraints.

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 'Raw HTTP request rows over a time window' which clearly identifies the resource and action. It also distinguishes from other query tools by specifying the dataset (httpRequestsAdaptive) and use case (unsampled per-request drill-down). This sets it apart from sibling tools like cf_query_firewall_events_raw.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this for unsampled per-request drill-down on traffic patterns (bot scores, cache statuses, origin response codes).' This tells the agent when to use this tool. It also references cf_query_firewall_events_raw for similar structure, implying the agent can consult that tool for details.

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