getRadiusProxyConfig

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 structurally. The description adds useful content context by naming what the payload includes (proxy enabled state and server settings), but says nothing about permissions, sensitivity of RADIUS secrets, or response shape. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource leading. 'From the controller' is mildly redundant given the tool name, but it usefully clarifies the source of truth; the trailing clause listing the returned fields earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers enough: what is fetched, from where, and roughly what the response contains. Additional detail such as error behavior when no proxy is configured would help, but is not essential to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('global RADIUS proxy configuration from the controller'), and the 'global' qualifier distinguishes it from any per-site configuration. No sibling tool in the list covers RADIUS proxy, so the resource itself does the differentiation, though the description never names a sibling 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 implied rather than stated: the 'global' qualifier suggests this is the controller-wide view rather than a site-scoped one, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool referenced. An agent can infer the use case from the name and description, which is the definition of minimum-viable guidance.

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