getGatewayWanStatus

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the response — per-WAN-port granularity and the specific metrics returned (IP, DNS, uptime, link speed, TX/RX, connection type) — which tells the agent this is a diagnostic snapshot rather than a config read.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, return contents second, parameter resolution third. It is front-loaded and every sentence carries information the agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing returns and does so adequately by listing the returned fields. Minor gaps remain: no note on behavior when the MAC is not a gateway or when a device has no WAN ports, but for a read-only diagnostic tool this is close to complete.

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 gatewayMac and siteId are already documented in structured form, and the description's 'Use listDevices to find the gatewayMac' largely duplicates the schema text. It adds the per-port scoping notion but says nothing about siteId or the default-site fallback, so 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the WAN port status and connectivity information for a specific gateway') and enumerates exactly what comes back (WAN IP, DNS, uptime, link speed, TX/RX rates, connection type per port). Naming 'WAN port' implicitly separates it from the sibling getGatewayLanStatus, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives one concrete prerequisite: use listDevices to resolve gatewayMac, which is useful operational routing. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over getGatewayDetail, getSitesHealthGatewaysWansDetails, or getUplinkWiredDetail, all of which are nearby siblings that could plausibly return overlapping WAN information.

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