getSitesApsOfdma

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally, and the description merely restates that with the word "Get." It adds no context about what the OFDMA configuration contains (per-radio settings, enabled/disabled state), whether it requires the AP to be online, or how errors surface for an unknown MAC.

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 zero filler, which is efficient. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but there is no wasted wording to trim.

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 simple read-only getter with fully documented parameters and clear safety annotations, this is close to sufficient. Still, with no output schema, an agent gets no sense of the shape or granularity of the returned OFDMA configuration, which is the one meaningful gap.

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%, including the MAC pattern and example plus the default-site fallback behavior, so the schema carries the parameter semantics fully. The description contributes nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 OFDMA configuration) scoped to an AP, which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling getters such as getRadiosConfig or getApQosConfig, so an agent must rely on the name alone to pick it out of the AP-config cluster.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any noted prerequisites. The only routing help (use listDevices to find AP MACs, listSites for site IDs) lives in the schema parameter descriptions, not the tool description.

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