getDashboardWifiSummary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the description doesn't need to repeat it. What the description does add beyond the annotations is the payload contract: the specific metrics an agent will get back, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It stops short of saying whether counts are aggregate or time-windowed.

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 that states the resource first and then the metric list. No filler, no redundancy, and the enumerated metrics are compact rather than sprawling.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema supply nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The one remaining gap is scope: it doesn't say whether the summary reflects real-time state or a default time window, which matters for interpreting the numbers.

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%, and the schema already explains siteId, its pattern, the OMADA_SITE_ID default fallback, and the pointer to listSites. The description mentions nothing about the parameter, so it adds no meaning here – the baseline 3 applies because the schema does all the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get WiFi summary for a site dashboard") and enumerates the exact metrics returned (AP totals, client count, channel utilization per band, SSID count). It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like getDashboardOverview or getApDetail, so an agent still has to infer which dashboard summary to pick.

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 only implied by the word "dashboard" – the agent can infer this is a high-level rollup rather than per-device detail, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over getApDetail or getDashboardOverview, and no mention of the default-site behavior when siteId is omitted.

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