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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It describes the ranked hardening checklist, marked completed steps, brand-specific password steps, neutral privacy/VPN guidance, and the hack-signal score plus common non-hack causes when symptoms are supplied.

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 front-loaded with the primary when-to-use guidance before moving into exclusions and return behavior. It is dense and long, but given the breadth of trigger phrases and the 16-parameter schema, most of the content earns its place; it could be structured more cleanly but is not padded with fluff.

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 complex 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the important gaps: what the tool returns, how symptom inputs are handled, what the score means, and what the tool cannot do. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already well documented. The description still adds useful population guidance by telling the agent to fill in symptom answers and use null for anything the user did not say rather than guessing, which is meaningful beyond the schema itself.

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 and resource: it helps secure a home Wi-Fi router and diagnose whether that router was hacked. It names concrete trigger phrases and explicitly distinguishes itself from check_public_wifi_risk, so an agent can tell what it does and does not cover.

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?

Usage conditions are explicit and unusually thorough: it lists when to use the tool, when not to use it (hacking someone else's network, finding or watching another person, public Wi-Fi safety), and names check_public_wifi_risk as the alternative for public networks. It also explains that it does not scan or connect to any network.

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