speedtest_tracker_servers

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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and open-world), the description adds concrete operational context: the SPEEDTEST_TRACKER_URL target, Bearer auth on authenticated routes, the required 'ookla:list-servers' ability, and the Accept header. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, but the auth/ability constraints are genuinely useful.

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?

It is compact and all sentences carry information, but the opening 'covers the servers toolset (1 operations)' is meta boilerplate, and the fragmented header-style sentence sequence ('Every request sends Accept: application/json.') is less front-loaded than a single clear purpose sentence would be.

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 gateway tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers auth, routing, and the help action, but it does not explain what the list action returns or which query/params fields are meaningful for listing servers. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already documents action, target, body, query, and params. The description only clarifies the help/target interaction and the enum values for action, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states the tool covers the 'servers toolset' with a single action 'list' and a required ability 'ookla:list-servers', which implies listing speedtest servers. But the wording is meta/framework-oriented ('covers the servers toolset (1 operations)') rather than a clean verb+resource statement, and it does not clearly distinguish it from the sibling results/stats/meta tools.

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 'action help with target returns one action's parameters', which explains the help action but not when to use this tool rather than speedtest_tracker_results or speedtest_tracker_stats. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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