getSpeedTestResults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that safe-read profile. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the values come from a prior test rather than being measured on demand, and it names the returned metrics (upload/download throughput). It stops short of describing what happens when no speed test has ever run.

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, each earning its place: what it returns, what the return values are, and which sibling to use for a new measurement. The key scoping fact is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the resource, the returned metrics, and the trigger-vs-read split. It could be slightly more complete by noting behavior when no stored result exists or whether results are timestamped.

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%: apMac includes a format example and a pointer to listDevices, and siteId explains the OMADA_SITE_ID default and listSites discovery. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the schema does all the work and the 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 the last speed test results for an access point") and immediately clarifies the payload (upload/download throughput from the most recent test). It explicitly distinguishes this read path from the triggerSpeedTest sibling, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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 routes the agent clearly: use triggerSpeedTest to start a new test, this tool returns stored results. That is an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it. The only gap is no guidance on the empty/never-tested case, which would matter in practice.

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