unifi_gen_getlagpage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or what the generated `filter` string accepts — context that matters for a paginated read endpoint.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. The generated-from URL adds little for an agent but does not bloat the text.

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 generated endpoint with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and near-duplicate siblings, the description should at minimum explain the filter/pagination contract and how it relates to unifi_net_list_lags. It supplies none of that.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. Nothing explains the `filter` syntax or what `limit`/`offset` page over, beyond what the bare property names imply.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List LAGs"), so the basic operation is legible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as unifi_net_list_lags, unifi_gen_getlag, or unifi_net_get_lag, leaving the agent unable to tell why there are duplicates or which to prefer.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative sibling to pick for multi-LAG vs single-LAG retrieval. The only extra text is a provenance URL, which gives no selection guidance.

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