speedtest_tracker_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious operational context: the target server comes from SPEEDTEST_TRACKER_URL, requests carry a Bearer token, and the caller needs the results:read ability. It does not describe result shape, pagination, or ordering for `latest`, but the auth/environment disclosure is real value beyond the annotations.

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 opening sentence front-loads the scope and the action list is kept to the end. The middle sentences are telegraphic ("Authenticated routes send Authorization Bearer", "Required abilities: results:read") but each carries distinct operational information, so there is little waste.

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 five-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers transport, auth, and the action set, but leaves gaps around what each action returns, which query/params keys apply to which action, and whether list is paginated. An agent could invoke it, but would likely need to call `help` to use it 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 100%, so action, target, query, params, and body are already documented in structured form. The description only restates the help+target behavior, adding no syntax, expected keys per action, or examples beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource domain ("results toolset") and enumerates the concrete operations ("list, get, latest"), which lets an agent separate it from the meta/servers/stats siblings. It never states what a "result" actually is (a recorded speedtest measurement), so the resource noun stays somewhat abstract.

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 only usage guidance is the mechanical note that "action help with target returns one action's parameters." There is no explanation of when to use list vs get vs latest, no prerequisites, and no pointer to which sibling tool to prefer for adjacent data.

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