v2_rf_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description reinforces this ("without touching anything") and usefully discloses the breadth of what is collected, which is real added context. It says nothing, however, about cost/latency of such an aggregate query or any scoping behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the concrete data returned, no filler. The metric list is long but each item is informative rather than decorative.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating return fields, which is a genuine strength. It falls short on the remaining gaps: the undocumented siteId and the absence of any routing among the numerous overlapping diagnostic/audit siblings.

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?

One parameter (siteId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains whether omitting it falls back to a default site. With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 names a specific resource (RF health/diagnostics) and enumerates the returned metrics — per-channel AP/client counts, channel utilisation, per-AP interference, client RSSI distribution, and controller wireless experience index history — so an agent knows exactly what data it yields. It does not differentiate from the closely overlapping siblings (v2_channel_util, v2_interference_audit, v2_health_audit, v2_rf_planning), which is what keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 closest thing this build has to a wireless test" implies the usage context — a broad, single-shot RF check-up rather than a targeted audit — but usage is only implied. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives among the many audit/channel/util siblings are given.

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