Universal default password check (UK PSTI / EU CRA pattern)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does disclose the basis of the determination (manufacturer-cited credential type), the output context (compliance index totals), and a caveat that this is documentation reading, not legal advice. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but those are minor for a read-only lookup.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is compact, with no empty filler. The first sentence is dense but earns its place by packing legal context and data source into one clause.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is checked, where the slug comes from, and what context is returned. It could optionally clarify the return shape, but the index-totals mention already gives useful output context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance by naming get_router_defaults as the source of the ssid.ai slug and implying its format, going beyond the schema's terse field description.

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 compliance check: whether a router model still ships a universal default password, tied to UK PSTI and EU CRA requirements. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_router_defaults by telling the agent to retrieve the slug there first.

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 gives a clear prerequisite and source for the required slug, which is useful usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to the other siblings, so it falls short of full alternatives guidance.

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