get_top_aps

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

With no annotations, description discloses ranking behavior, time window constraints, and defaults. Does not mention output format but output schema exists. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then clear bullet points for each parameter. No redundant sentences; efficient and readable.

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 5 params, no required ones, and output schema present, description covers all key aspects: sorting, time constraints, defaults, filtering. Complete for selection and 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 has 0% description coverage; description explains all 5 parameters with details (enum options for usage_type, range for limit, format for dates). Adds significant value beyond 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?

Clear statement 'Get top access points ranked by bandwidth usage over a time range' with specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings like list_aps (all APs) and get_top_clients_by_usage (clients).

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?

Description provides usage context (time range, ranking by bandwidth) and parameter guidance, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Implicit differentiation from sibling tools is adequate.

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