monitor_router_lookup6

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

Annotations are absent, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'route lookup' without clarifying read-only nature, real-time status, or failure conditions. Output schema exists but description does not supplement.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, though could be expanded with minimal context under 5 words.

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?

Given low complexity and presence of output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks context like typical usage scenarios or constraints, which might help an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool performs an IPv6 route lookup, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from IPv4 siblings like monitor_router_lookup.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., monitor_router_lookup for IPv4) or prerequisites (valid IPv6 address). Description lacks explicit context for selection.

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