unifi_gen_getcountries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a provenance URL with an API version, which is not behavioral context; it says nothing about pagination defaults, filter behavior, or result 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?

A single short sentence with the purpose front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing 'generated from developer.ui.com/...' clause is the only arguably non-essential text, though it hints at the upstream spec.

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 endpoint with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It is still incomplete regarding the filtering/pagination semantics and the overlap with the duplicate 'unifi_net_list_countries' tool, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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 0% and three parameters (limit, filter, offset) are documented nowhere. The description does not compensate at all — no mention of the 200-item limit cap, what 'filter' accepts, or default page size — though the conventional pagination names make the gap somewhat less severe than fully opaque parameters.

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 and resource ('List Countries'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling 'unifi_net_list_countries', which appears to do the same thing, leaving ambiguity unresolved.

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 near-identical 'unifi_net_list_countries' sibling, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The only signal is the name itself, which implies a read-only enumeration.

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