getPortForwardingStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it does well: it reveals that only one type is returned per call, that page/pageSize are API-required despite schema defaults, and that two invocations are needed. It omits return shape, but the resource is well understood from name and text.

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 short sentences, all informative, with the purpose, scoping, and call pattern presented in order. No filler or repetition that would dilute the guidance.

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 and no annotations, so a bit more return-format detail could help, but the description already tells the agent what to call, how many times, and what to pass. That is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds operational semantics beyond the schema: both page and pageSize must be sent, and type must be varied across two calls to get the full picture. That adds real invocation value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('port forwarding status and rules for a site'), then clarifies the User/UPnP split. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling list/get tools, none of which target port forwarding.

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 explains that complete information requires two calls, one per type. It does not compare to alternatives, but no direct sibling alternative exists, so the repeated-call guidance is strong practical direction.

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