get_modem_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that ('Get'). No additional behavioral context is provided, such as response shape, pagination behavior, or what subset of devices is returned, so the description adds only the account-scope context beyond the annotation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word carries meaning: the verb, the resource, and the account scope.

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 simple read-only list tool with optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description states the core resource and scope. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't describe the return format or the device fields, but an agent can successfully invoke it with no required parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the page and limit parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get modem/router devices on the account') that clearly differentiates this tool from account/usage/ticket siblings like get_account or get_usage. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly state scope or contrast with an alternative, but the resource itself is distinctive enough for selection.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the description implies the tool is for retrieving modem/router devices tied to the account. It does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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