router_soap_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: a configuration prerequisite and a failure warning ('some advertised getters are known to fault'), which tells the agent to expect errors from otherwise legitimate calls.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by prerequisites and caveats; nothing is padded. The only cost is that the dense phrasing ('advertised', 'UPnP origin configuration') is never unpacked.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values needn't be explained, but a tool with a nested free-form parameter object and 0% schema coverage needs more guidance than two sentences. How to populate 'parameters' and where valid action/serviceId values come from are the key omissions.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It never explains what 'serviceId' identifies, gives no example or format for 'action', and says nothing about the free-form 'parameters' map (string keys to string values up to 4096 chars). Only the word 'advertised' loosely hints that action names must be discovered elsewhere.

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 and resource ('Call an advertised read-only SOAP action') and scopes it as read-only, which separates it from the write-oriented siblings like router_soap_action and router_execute_action. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred, and 'advertised' is jargon that isn't defined.

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 description gives a prerequisite ('Requires explicit UPnP origin configuration'), which is useful context for calling it successfully. It does not say when to prefer this over router_read, router_soap_action, or router_execute_action, leaving the choice to inference from names.

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