getIspLoad

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 a meaningful behavioral detail — that results are broken out per uplink and include both volume and utilization — but says nothing about retention limits, aggregation granularity, or behavior when a link had no traffic in the window. Consistent with, and additive to, the annotations.

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 compact sentences with the core capability front-loaded, followed by the return content and use cases. No filler or repetition. Slight redundancy in restating timestamp units already covered by the schema keeps it from a 5.

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 only three parameters, full schema coverage, and a read-only annotation set, the description supplies what is missing: what the response conceptually contains (per-link volume and utilization). It does not cover retention windows or data granularity, and since there is no output schema, a bit more on the shape of results would help.

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 every parameter (start, end, siteId) is documented in the schema, including the siteId fallback to OMADA_SITE_ID and the listSites pointer. The description's note that 'start and end are Unix timestamps in seconds' merely repeats what the schema already states, so it adds no new meaning. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get per-WAN ISP link load over a time range') and clarifies the output subject ('traffic volume and utilization per internet uplink'). An agent can distinguish it from generic WAN-detail tools like getGatewayWanStatus or getUplinkWiredDetail by the 'load/utilization over time' framing, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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 offers three scenarios ('understanding load balancing behaviour, identifying saturated WAN links, analysing failover events'), which gives implied when-to-use context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, no mention of alternatives such as getUplinkWiredDetail or getSpeedTestResults, and no stated prerequisites for the time range.

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