get_sdwan_config_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether the call is read-only, what happens if no config is deployed yet, or how large/streamed the status payload is. The 'Returns:' line merely restates the tool name.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the bulky 'Args:'/'Returns:' boilerplate duplicates the schema and the tool name respectively. Almost none of that text adds information, so the description is padded rather than concise.

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 need not be explained, but the description still omits the controller-selection context (the schema mentions list_controllers/select_controller, which the description never surfaces), gives no usage routing against siblings, and leaves config_id semantics unexplained.

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 50%: config_id is undocumented in the schema and the description only restates it as 'Configuration identifier' with no format or source (e.g. where to obtain it). It also lists a 'settings' argument that does not exist in the schema and ignores the meaningful controller-resolution behavior documented in the schema.

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 first line gives a specific verb+resource ('Get SD-WAN configuration deployment status'), which is meaningfully narrower than the sibling get_sdwan_config or list_sdwan_configs. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those siblings, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no contrast with get_sdwan_config or list_sdwan_configs, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a controller must be selected). The description gives no signal about when this tool is the right choice.

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