network_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what data is returned (SSID history, encryption, locations), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 that efficiently conveys all necessary information with no redundant or vague words.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers the purpose, inputs, and key outputs (SSID history, encryption, locations). Annotations cover safety and idempotency.

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 only parameter bssid is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming its use. Baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and explicitly states the resource 'single network by its BSSID', listing included data (SSID history, encryption, locations). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like network_search (which searches) and bluetooth_detail/cell_detail (different network types).

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 for retrieving detailed information about a known network by BSSID, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., network_search for queries, bluetooth_detail for Bluetooth). No 'when not to use' or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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