getSitesHealthGatewaysWansDetails

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level purpose, omitting details such as whether the gateway must be online, what 'health details' include, error handling, or performance implications. This is insufficient for a tool that likely requires specific permissions and depends on network state.

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 description is extremely concise at one sentence (8 words), but this brevity sacrifices informative content. While it contains no fluff, it does not earn its place because it omits necessary context. A rating of 3 reflects that it is neither verbose nor sufficiently detailed.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., 'health details' could include port status, speed, errors, etc.). It also does not mention any side effects or that it is a read-only operation. For a tool with moderate complexity (nested objects), the description is incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter well (e.g., siteId, gatewayMac with examples, customHeaders). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('WAN port health details for a gateway'). It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like getGatewayWanStatus, which may also return health information, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getGatewayWanStatus or getGatewayPorts. The description does not mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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