getClientDetail

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by enumerating what the response contains (connection info, IP, VLAN, signal strength, traffic stats), which matters since there is no output schema; it stops short of stating what happens when the MAC is unknown or the client is offline.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, the identifying key, and the payload summary in that order. No filler or repetition.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-value summary and the lookup key. It omits error/empty-result behavior and the site scoping default, which are minor given the small surface area.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the description only restates the MAC-address lookup key. It says nothing about the optional siteId or the default-site fallback, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get full detail') and resource ('a specific client'), and identifies the lookup key (MAC address) plus the categories of data returned. This separates it implicitly from the list- and diagnose-oriented siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a single client's detail when you already know its MAC. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no pointer to listClients/getGridKnownClients for discovering a MAC, and no guidance on preferring diagnoseClient for troubleshooting.

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