get_speed_test_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description reinforces and extends that by stating exactly what it reports: download/upload/latency from the most recent test and whether a test is in progress. It also explicitly clarifies that no new test is triggered, a behavioral detail not inferable from the schema alone. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by the read-only note and the pointer to run_speed_test, then a brief Args list. The Args list is redundant with the schema but remains compact and non-disruptive. Overall it earns its place with no fluff.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the key returned data (download/upload/latency and run state) and the correct alternative for starting a test. Minor edge cases, such as behavior when no prior test exists, are left unstated, but the core usage context is sufficiently complete.

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 the Args section in the description repeats the schema property descriptions almost verbatim. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema's existing descriptions of site and device, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the latest WAN speed-test result and run state for a site.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling run_speed_test by stating it does not start a measurement. The scope is precise: site-level query covering download/upload/latency and run state.

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 for starting a test: 'Use run_speed_test to initiate a new measurement; this does not start one.' This gives a clear condition for when to use this tool versus a sibling. It also labels the operation read-only, further guiding appropriate use.

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