Get firewall policy ordering

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic that system-defined rules sit between the two returned arrays, which is useful context, but it discloses nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or edge cases.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then return structure. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-format sentence is somewhat redundant, but annotations and schema together mean the agent has what it needs to call this correctly. Only the when-to-use routing against siblings is missing.

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%, so all three IDs are documented in the schema; the description only reinforces that the zone parameters form a pair. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, and no extra format or constraint detail is added.

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 (get) and resource (firewall policy ordering) and narrows the scope to a (source zone, destination zone) pair. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like unifi_list_firewall_policies and unifi_get_acl_rule_ordering without opening a schema.

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?

The description implies when this is useful (to learn evaluation order for a zone pair) but never states when to use it versus alternatives like unifi_list_firewall_policies or how it relates to a sibling ordering endpoint. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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