list_carrier_service_plans

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 discloses the return shape ('count' and 'data'), but says nothing about pagination, auth/permissions, or result limits for what is presumably a large collection.

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 short and front-loaded, but it spends lines on a nonexistent 'settings' argument and a Returns block that is redundant given the output schema. Structure is fine, content is partly wasted.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the definition is close to complete. The misleading 'settings' argument and the absence of any when-to-use guidance leave clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'controller' parameter, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description's Args section documents a 'settings: Application settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema, introducing misleading parameter information.

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 ('List') and resource ('UniFi Carrier Fabric service plans'), which is enough to separate it from the singular sibling get_carrier_service_plan. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the list-vs-get distinction is 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 the many siblings, particularly get_carrier_service_plan (single plan) or list_carrier_subscribers. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are given.

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