ARP table and neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds real value by disclosing that results merge ARP entries with MNDP/CDP/LLDP neighbor discovery, which explains why the output may contain hosts outside the ARP table. It does not mention truncation behavior or that rows are capped, so it stops short of a 4.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the rationale trails it. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is adequate but leaves the undocumented 'interface' filter and the shape of returned rows (address, MAC, interface, neighbor protocol) unexplained. An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict the response fields.

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 67%: limit and device are well documented in the schema, but the 'interface' parameter has no description anywhere and the description never compensates for it. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline for high-ish coverage is appropriate.

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 ('List') and precise resource ('ARP entries and discovered neighbors'), plus names the discovery protocols (MNDP/CDP/LLDP). This lets an agent distinguish it from mikrotik_dhcp_leases or mikrotik_ip_addresses, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as the alternatives.

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 trailing clause 'to see which hosts are on the network' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance despite several overlapping siblings (dhcp_leases, wireless_clients, ip_addresses) that also answer 'which hosts exist'.

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