Get info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that the Integration API returns no isUniFiOSConsole or other field — a real caveat that prevents an agent from assuming richer output. It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and the return payload before the usage note. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 zero-param, read-only app-info tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: what it returns, what it does not return, and when to reach for it. The 'Use for' clause is slightly narrow and referential, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance and its note that only applicationVersion is returned prevents mistaking this for a parameterized query.

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 and resource ('Get UniFi Network application info') and then names the exact payload ('applicationVersion only'), which cleanly separates it from every sibling that lists or retrieves site/device/client entities. An agent can identify it without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives a use case: 'checking the Network version when a tool's description notes version-specific behaviour.' This is clear context with a triggering condition. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use condition, though no sibling meaningfully overlaps.

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