router_dhcp_leases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral detail that leases are 'current' (live), but says nothing about return format or edge cases. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is acceptable though minimal.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words. The resource and scope are front-loaded and entirely relevant.

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 no-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool, the description sufficiently identifies what is retrieved. It does not detail the output structure, but no output schema exists and the resource name conveys the expected result. Minor gaps around empty results or formatting exist but are not critical.

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 tool has zero parameters and parameter schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is unnecessary. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and exact resource ('current DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 leases'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like router_client_summary or router_connections. It is specific and avoids tautology.

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?

The description implies usage: use when you need current DHCP leases. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the many sibling router status tools, nor does it name alternatives. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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