Explain Omada errorCode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond them — no statement of what the decoded result contains, whether the lookup is local or live, or how the `endpoint` parameter alters interpretation — largely because the text is truncated mid-sentence.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with a clear verb, which is good, but it terminates abruptly with an ellipsis, leaving the definition incomplete rather than concise. There is no second sentence to recover the missing information.

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, and the tool is conceptually simple with only two parameters. Even so, the description is cut off and leaves the `endpoint` parameter and the intended use case unaddressed, which is inadequate even for a low-complexity tool.

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 50%: `code` is documented in the schema and the description merely repeats the same example values, adding no meaning. The `endpoint` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, which is a real gap since it presumably scopes how a code is interpreted.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Decode an Omada Web API errorCode' — and lists concrete example codes (-1600, -33717, -33726, etc.), which no sibling tool does, so an agent can distinguish it from diagnose_* and list_* tools. However, the sentence literally trails off with an ellipsis ('into its…'), so the stated purpose is never completed.

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 statement of preconditions (e.g. after a failed API call), and no reference to related diagnostic siblings such as diagnose_client or diagnose_wan. The agent must infer the trigger scenario entirely.

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