router_get_data_limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned data points and implies a live/network-backed read ('live bandwidth'), but it says nothing about caching, latency, or why a force flag exists — meaningful gaps for a tool that may hit the modem.

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 tightly-packed sentence with the payload items front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description adequately foretells the payload. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent still lacks the information needed to decide whether to pass force.

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% and the single 'force' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The word 'live' might hint at freshness semantics, but it does not explain what force=true overrides, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') plus three named data points (monthly cellular data allowance, billing cycle start day, live bandwidth), which lets an agent tell this read tool apart from router_set_data_limit without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name that sibling, 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?

Usage is only implied: it's clearly the read counterpart to router_set_data_limit in the sibling list, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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