Resolved identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete return fields, which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure modes (unauthenticated, no site selected) or whether IDs are stable across consoles.

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 front-loaded sentence with the returned fields listed immediately; no padding. The colon-fragment phrasing and the trailing "useful for sanity checks" are the only rough edges.

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?

The tool is trivial to invoke (no args), and listing the three returned IDs partly compensates for the absent output schema. However, an agent gets no explanation of what these IDs are for, how they differ between the network and site-manager APIs, or what an empty/error response would look like.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the description.

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 output (consoleId, networkSiteId, siteManagerSiteId) that effectively defines the tool as resolving the current console/site identity triple. It is clear what it returns, but it never distinguishes itself from identity-adjacent siblings such as unifi_net_get_info or unifi_gen_getinfo.

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?

"Useful for sanity checks" is the only usage hint and it is vague. No when-to-use condition, no prerequisites (e.g. requires an authenticated console/site context), and no alternative named among the many get_info-style siblings.

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