getApLldpConfig

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload ('enabled state and advertised TLVs'), but says nothing about auth requirements, default-site behavior when siteId is omitted, or error cases for an unknown AP.

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 and return values are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. The trailing sentence explaining what LLDP is generally is educational filler that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, so it does not earn 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it even describes the return shape in lieu of an output schema. Only the default-site fallback and failure behavior are left implicit, and the schema covers the former.

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%, with apMac format and siteId defaulting behavior fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as what happens if the AP has LLDP disabled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get LLDP configuration for an access point') and even names the return contents, so it is clearly separable from siblings like getApSnmpConfig or getApGeneralConfig. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a known AP MAC. Usage is only implied by the name and by being an AP-scoped read of one specific config area.

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