run_speed_test

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

Discloses that the operation is mutating, long-running, triggers a test, and returns a handle or immediate result requiring polling. This adds useful operational context beyond the idempotentHint annotation and does not contradict it.

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?

Core behavior and the polling workflow are front-loaded and compactly stated. The Args section is redundant with the schema, which costs a little, but the overall structure remains scannable and informative.

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-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the trigger, the long-running behavior, the polling flow, and the sibling status tool. The return value is described at a handle/immediate-result level, which is adequate for correct invocation.

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 simply restates the site and device descriptions already present in the input schema. No additional meaning or usage nuance is added beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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?

Clearly states the action and resource: 'Start an on-demand WAN speed test from the site gateway.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_speed_test_status by noting that the sibling reads the latest result instead of starting a new test.

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?

Explicitly says to poll get_speed_test_status for completion and to use that sibling to read the latest result without starting a new test. This gives an agent unambiguous when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to the nearest alternative.

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