get_carrier_subscriber

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. It implies a read ('Get') but discloses nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown IDs, or rate limits; 'Returns: The subscriber as a dictionary' is the only behavioral hint and is vague.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in one sentence, then compact Args/Returns blocks. The only waste is the phantom 'settings' line, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value needn't be explained. However, for a tool with no annotations the description omits all behavioral context and misstates the parameter set, leaving it only minimally 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 coverage is 50%: subscriber_id has no schema description and controller is documented in the schema, not the description. The description's 'subscriber_id: Subscriber identifier' adds nothing, and it introduces a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is actively misleading.

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+resource and a lookup key ('Get a UniFi Carrier Fabric subscriber by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from list_carrier_subscribers and create/update siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the 'by ID' scope is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no alternatives named (e.g. list_carrier_subscribers for enumeration). The agent must infer the read-by-ID use case 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.