get_top_aps

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by descending bandwidth, explains usage_type options, time range constraints (max 30 days), and defaults. However, it does not mention behavior for invalid inputs or rate limits, which would elevate it to 5.

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 extremely concise: a single opening sentence establishing purpose, followed by a bulleted parameter list with clear explanations. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema (so return values are not required in description), the description covers all parameter details, defaults, and constraints. It could mention error handling or behavior when no results, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, format, defaults, and constraints (e.g., limit range 1-25, RFC 3339 format for times). This provides essential context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get top access points ranked by bandwidth usage' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_aps (which lists all APs without ranking) and get_ap_throughput (which focuses on throughput rather than top usage).

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 states when to use (to get top APs by bandwidth over a time range) but does not provide explicit alternatives or when not to use it. While it is implied, no direct comparison with siblings is given.

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