getIspLoad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as read-only ('Get') and mentions the time range, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose authentication or rate limits. Adequate for a read tool but 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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second adds detail, third lists use cases. The timestamp note is redundant with schema but not wasteful. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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 no output schema, the description hints at return values ('traffic volume and utilization per internet uplink'). It covers purpose, usage, and output expectation. Lacks details on pagination or time range limits, but is fairly complete for a straightforward read tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds 'start and end are Unix timestamps in seconds,' which reiterates the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'per-WAN ISP link load' clearly define the tool's purpose. The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like getGatewayWanStatus by focusing on load over a time range and mentioning traffic volume and utilization.

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?

Explicit use cases are given ('understanding load balancing behaviour, identifying saturated WAN links, and analysing failover events'), but no explicit alternative tools or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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