bluetooth_detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('everything WiGLE knows') and mentioning 'name history and recorded sighting locations.' It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral insight, though it could mention potential limitations like data recency or rate limits.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or unnecessary words. Every part 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions key data returned (name history, sighting locations). Could elaborate on whether all history or recent sightings, but likely covered by output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'bssid' described in the schema. The description reinforces its purpose ('by its MAC address') but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up everything WiGLE knows about a single Bluetooth/BLE device by its MAC address, including name history and recorded sighting locations.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('Bluetooth/BLE device by its MAC address'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detailed data for a single device.

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 description implies usage (when you need detailed info on a specific Bluetooth device by MAC), but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like bluetooth_search. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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