unifi_get_mc_lag_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known as a safe read operation. The description adds context about the content of the details (peer switches and member LAGs), which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of what to expect.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists to document return values, the description is adequate. It specifies what the tool returns (full details, peer switches, member LAGs), which is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose. Minor omission: no mention of prerequisites like the domain existing, but that is implicit.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description (Site ID, MC-LAG Domain ID). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details of an MC-LAG Domain, including peer switches and member LAGs. It distinguishes from sibling tool unifi_list_mc_lag_domains, which lists domains rather than retrieving details.

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 usage when full details of a specific domain are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like unifi_list_mc_lag_domains for listing domains first. Usage context is only implied.

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