org_device_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing pagination behavior: the result carries 'returned'/'limit'/'truncated', and the agent is told to re-run with a higher limit when truncated rather than trusting an incomplete list. That is genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields, though nothing is said about auth requirements or rate limits.

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 roll-up scope is front-loaded in a single line, followed by a compact args block. Every sentence earns its place, including the truncation warning, which conveys non-obvious retry semantics rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully compensates by naming the return envelope fields and their meaning. For a read-only tool with three optional parameters it is essentially complete; it could still say what status values or product types to expect, which is the only remaining gap.

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%, so the description carries the full burden—and it does: org_id (Meraki org id, omit for default org), limit (default 500, drives truncation), and target (config name, omit for default) are all explained with defaults and semantics. This fully compensates for the empty schema titles.

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 concrete verb and resource—org-wide device availability—and adds scope qualifiers ('rolled up by status + product type') that make it clearly distinct from the single-device sibling 'device_status'. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of the 5 calibration case, but the aggregation scope alone is enough for an agent to differentiate.

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?

Guidance is limited to argument-level mechanics ('omit org_id to use the target's default org', 'omit target for the default'). It never states when to prefer this tool over 'device_status' or other org-level siblings, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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