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

The description discloses that the operation is 'SLOW and SIDE-EFFECTING,' details the 1200s timeout, mentions the server-side writeback to the tools_walks table, and warns that the writeback may complete even if the HTTP response stalls. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) by adding concrete behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: it front-loads the core purpose, immediately warns about slowness and side effects, gives usage guidance, explains timeout behavior, and provides an example. It is well-structured and not verbose given the critical warnings it must convey.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and significant behavioral caveats, the description covers all essentials: what it does, when to use it, side effects, timeout, retry policy, and an example. It also clarifies that the result is stored in tools_walks table, so the agent knows to retrieve it via snmp_walk_last. Nothing critical is missing.

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 already provides a full description for device_id ('Device id to walk. Server resolves SNMP credentials from the device row.'), so the tool description adds little beyond an example call. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the example is helpful but does not introduce new semantic meaning.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Trigger a FRESH SNMP walk against a device.' It also mentions the exact endpoint wrapper (POST /api/getSNMPWalkInfo/{deviceId}) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling snmp_walk_last by saying 'Always try snmp_walk_last first.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from its nearest sibling.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use vs. alternative: 'Always try snmp_walk_last first; only call this when the cached walk is missing or known to be stale.' It also gives retry guidance on timeout, telling the agent not to retry without checking snmp_walk_last. This is textbook usage guidance.

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