get_readers

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 adds only marginal context ('wraps NBAPI GetReaders') and the absence of a filter; it says nothing about result size, pagination behavior, or ordering beyond what the schema's cursor parameter implies.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the scoping/limitation statement is front-loaded right after the purpose. Nothing extraneous.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key limitation, and the alternative route. Nothing essential for invocation is missing; only richer return-shape detail is absent, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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% and the sole parameter (STARTFROMKEY) is fully documented in the schema as a pagination cursor. The description adds only the negative statement that no portal-id filter parameter exists, which marginally clarifies the parameter surface but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists readers') with explicit scope ('configured on the NetBox system'). It also differentiates from the sibling get_portals by clarifying that no portal-id filter exists, so the agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly gives the alternative route: 'There is no portal-id filter — use get_portals to see each reader nested under its portal.' This directly tells the agent when to pick a different sibling, which is exactly the routing guidance this dimension rewards.

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