get_mobility_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does real work: it reveals the response is the complete DeviceDetail passed through 'verbatim under device', and that key_label is an optional routing selector among configured API keys. Missing are explicit read-only confirmation and behavior for invalid or absent IDs, which are minor for a single-item GET with an output schema.

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?

Four compact lines cover purpose, return shape, and all three parameter semantics with no filler. The most important claim ('full detail for one UMR device') is front-loaded, and the parameter notes use a consistent, scannable pattern.

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 tool with a present output schema, the description already explains the return container (verbatim DeviceDetail under device) and the full ID-sourcing workflow. The only gap is failure semantics — nothing on invalid UUIDs or authorization — which keeps it just short of complete.

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%, so every parameter must be explained in prose, and the description delivers: workspace_id and device_id are tied to their source lists with provenance, and key_label's routing semantics and optionality (default null) are stated. This gives the agent everything needed to construct valid calls and goes well beyond the bare schema names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Get full detail for one UMR device in a Mobility workspace' — and enumerates the expected payload (WAN/cellular/WiFi/VPN/subscription/GPS, counts, summary fields). This distinguishes it from the list_mobility_devices enumeration and the update_mobility_device_* mutations among its siblings.

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?

Provides clear operational context by telling the agent where to source each required ID: workspace_id 'from list_mobility_workspaces' and device_id 'from list_mobility_devices'. It never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives (e.g., 'use list for summaries, this for full detail'), so it stops short of a 5, but the call sequence is unambiguous.

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