getGatewayLanStatus

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 correctly stays consistent with that. It adds the returned field set, which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about permissions, caching/freshness, or what an empty or offline port list looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed by the one actionable prerequisite. No filler, though the listDevices hint is redundant with the schema and could have been spent on sibling routing instead.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate: it names the return payload despite having no output schema, which is the main informational gap the agent would otherwise face. Missing is only clearer separation from getGatewayPorts/WAN-status siblings.

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% and the schema already explains both siteId (default from OMADA_SITE_ID, use listSites) and gatewayMac (with format example). The description's 'Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac' duplicates the gatewayMac property description verbatim in substance, adding no new semantics. Baseline 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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Get LAN port status for a specific gateway') with an explicit enumeration of what is returned: link state, speed, duplex, connected device, VLAN assignment. The word 'LAN' implicitly separates it from getGatewayWanStatus, but the description never names getGatewayPorts, which is the closest overlapping sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite: 'Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac.' There is no statement of when to prefer this over getGatewayPorts, getGatewayWanStatus, or getUplinkWiredDetail, and no indication of failure conditions such as a gateway with no LAN ports. Usage is implied by the LAN-port framing rather than stated.

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