speed_test_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any limiting behavior. The only behavioral hint is the default 'all' for service.

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 two short segments, front-loading the resource and then defining the parameter. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter query, the description provides the resource type and parameter semantics. However, it doesn't clarify the return format or how this relates to siblings like test_result, which would help context. The absence of an output schema increases the burden, but the simplicity makes this minimally viable.

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?

The description explains the service parameter as accepting 'a site alias | service_id | ''all'' (default)', which conveys the allowed values and default. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has a type and default.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning speed test results recorded against the service, with a mention of AussieBB context. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'), making it slightly less direct. It does distinguish from sibling tools by focusing on speed tests specifically, but does not name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like test_result or test_history. The description only states what the resource is, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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