get_speed_test

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. 'Get details of a specific speed test' adds little beyond the tool name; it does not state the response format, whether the operation is read-only, or any prerequisites like having an existing test_id.

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 one-sentence description is short, front-loaded, and free of filler words, which is appropriate for a simple getter. While it could be expanded with usage context, as a concise statement it 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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description is the only source of operational context. It does not explain where test_id comes from, how this tool relates to list_speed_tests, or what 'details' will be returned, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently invoke it among many similar getters.

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 fully documents all three parameters (url, test_id, zone_id) with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter relationships or contextual meaning, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource as 'a specific speed test', which distinguishes it from the sibling list_speed_tests. However, it does not clarify what 'details' encompasses relative to other speed-test siblings, so differentiation is present but minimal.

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 call this tool versus list_speed_tests, get_speed_schedule, get_speed_page_trend, or other related endpoints. The intended workflow, such as needing a test_id from list_speed_tests first, is only implicit and never stated.

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