getSitesHealthGatewaysWansDetails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, the description does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness characteristics. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema and involves nested objects (implied by context). The description does not explain what 'health details' includes or the structure of the response. While the tool's name hints at details, an agent might benefit from knowing key fields returned. It is adequate for simple use but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including siteId, customHeaders, and gatewayMac. The description adds no additional meaning or usage nuances beyond what is in the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'WAN port health details for a gateway.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getGatewayHealth (general health), getGatewayWanStatus (WAN status), and getGatewayPorts (ports listing), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, integration with other tools, or mention when to prefer getGatewayHealth, getGatewayWanStatus, or similar tools. An agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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