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

While annotations handle the safety profile (read-only), the description adds critical behavioral constraints regarding scope—specifically that it is limited to local adapter data and does not perform external scanning or modification.

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 slightly dense, but highly effective. Every sentence serves a purpose by either defining functionality, listing included data points, or explicitly stating exclusions/differences from other tools, avoiding unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity of network operations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and how it differs from its most likely alternative, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter description does not need to add semantic value regarding the `device` ID. It correctly lands on the baseline score, acknowledging the schema is sufficient for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'inspect the full local network interface inventory.' It specifies the exact contents (IPv4, IPv6, MAC, flags) and crucially distinguishes it from the sibling tool, `network_summary`.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when and when not to use the tool. It states that it only reads local adapter data and does not scan networks or change configurations, making its operational boundaries clear.

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