Audit site network health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the concrete scope of the audit — the categories of findings returned — which tells the agent what to expect rather than merely repeating the safety profile.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted phrasing, but it terminates in an ellipsis, signalling the check list is truncated and leaving the agent with an incomplete enumeration. Efficient, but structurally unfinished.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't document return values, and it adequately frames the audit's domain. Still, the truncated check list and the silent handling of the `site` parameter leave gaps for a tool whose only input is unscoped.

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?

The single `site` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so its meaning, format, and default behavior (required count is 0, implying an optional/fallback scope) must be guessed. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 action and resource ("read-only health audit") and enumerates the checks it performs (WAN state/packet loss, offline devices, pending firmware upgrades), which is far more informative than the title alone. It implies an aggregate one-shot check but never explicitly contrasts itself with single-purpose siblings such as get_wan_status or list_devices.

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?

"One-call" hints that this should be preferred over issuing several narrower queries, which is implicit usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for cases where the agent only needs one signal (e.g., WAN status alone).

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