get_carrier_service_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about required permissions, error behavior for unknown IDs, or controller-selection side effects, and an output schema already covers return shape.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args/Returns scaffolding adds an argument ('settings') that the tool does not accept, so a sentence that should earn its place instead introduces noise.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the Returns line is redundant rather than missing. The core gap is the undocumented relationship to the controller parameter (only covered by the schema) and the phantom 'settings' arg, leaving the definition adequate but not fully trustworthy.

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 Args block documents plan_id, but schema coverage is only 50% and the documented 'settings: Application settings' does not exist in the input schema, which lists plan_id and controller. This stale/mismatched argument list actively misleads rather than adding meaning.

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 (Get), resource (UniFi Carrier Fabric service plan) and scope (by ID), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_carrier_service_plans. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the singular 'by ID' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_carrier_service_plans or any other sibling, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the plan_id does not exist. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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