getApQosConfig

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 fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what the returned QoS configuration contains, how the default-site fallback behaves, or whether an AP not configured for QoS returns defaults or an error.

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 zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity costs it in the other dimensions rather than in structure.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It nonetheless omits what the agent will receive (e.g., which QoS attributes) and how to handle a missing AP or unset QoS policy.

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 both apMac (with pattern and example) and the optional siteId (with default-site fallback) are already well documented. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('QoS configuration') and scopes it to 'a specific access point', which separates it from gateway-level siblings such as getGatewayQosClassRules and getQosPolicy. It does not, however, name any of those siblings or clarify how AP QoS differs from the broader QoS policy tools.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many QoS-adjacent siblings (getQosPolicy, getTrafficPriority, getBandwidthCtrlDetail). The only routing hints ('Use listDevices to find AP MACs', 'Use listSites to discover site IDs') live in the schema, not the description.

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