getGridEapRule

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 adds that results are paginated and the domain of the returned rules, but says nothing about ordering, default page size, or total-count behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences with the resource and pagination note front-loaded; no filler. Slightly redundant in that the second sentence largely restates what the first already conveys.

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, three-parameter paginated list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and its scope adequately. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to the many similar URL-filter and ACL 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 description coverage is 100%, with page, pageSize, and siteId fully documented including defaults, ranges, and a pointer to listSites. The description only echoes 'paginated' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get URL filter AP rules) and clarifies the scope as rules applied to wireless clients via access points. An agent can distinguish this from generic URL filter tools by the AP/wireless framing, though 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 only implied by the phrase 'applied to wireless clients via access points'. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against likely alternatives such as getUrlFilterRules, getUrlFilterBlacklist, or listEapAcls, which appear in the sibling list.

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