get_client_details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation'. It adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating what the response covers: identity, connection state, IP, signal/AP association, and history. No hidden mutation or side effects are implied.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, then read-only/return content, then sibling differentiation, then args. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and every section is clearly organized.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation, annotations cover safety, and the description lists the categories of returned data even without an output schema. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it will get and when to use it, though exact response fields are not enumerated.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The Args section in the description mostly repeats the schema fields and defaults, adding little new meaning beyond restating that 'device' is optional and defaults apply.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('full device record for one client'), and the lookup key ('by MAC address'). It also explicitly differentiates itself from list_clients/list_all_clients by explaining it returns deeper detail than summarized rows.

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?

The description explicitly names the alternative tools (list_clients/list_all_clients) and gives the distinguishing condition: use this when you need depth beyond summarized rows. This gives an agent clear routing guidance for choosing this tool over its closest siblings.

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