get_system_routerboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real interpretive value beyond that: it explains that `current-firmware` vs `upgrade-firmware` refers to the separately-upgraded RouterBOOT bootloader, a domain trap an agent would otherwise miss.

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 core statement is a single front-loaded sentence, and the note is short and relevant to interpreting firmware fields. The note is slightly indented/awkward and references fields not named in the input schema, but it 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?

A read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage does not need to explain return values, so the description is close to adequate. However, the undocumented optional `device` parameter and the absence of any usage routing leave it only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single optional `device` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains how a device is identified (name vs address, default behavior when omitted). With the schema silent, this is a genuine gap the description should have filled.

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 names a specific verb ("Reports") and enumerates the exact resource contents (model, serial number, bootloader firmware revision), so an agent can distinguish it from get_system_resource or get_system_health. It stops short of naming any sibling it is not, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but the note about bootloader firmware being "easy to leave behind after a package upgrade" implies the context in which an agent would reach for this tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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