Get MC-LAG domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine scope context by naming what the 'full details' comprise (peer switches, member LAGs), but says nothing about errors when an ID is not found or any size/rate considerations. Adding the return-content scope earns it above baseline without reaching rich behavioral disclosure.

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 no filler. The resource is named first and the clarifying parenthetical is placed where it helps most.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and 100% schema coverage documents both IDs. The only real gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance relative to the list/get siblings, which for a small read tool is a minor omission.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with type, pattern and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format or sourcing guidance for siteId or mcLagDomainId beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('MC-LAG Domain') and clarifies the payload contents (peer switches and member LAGs). It is clearly distinguishable from unifi_list_mc_lag_domains and unifi_get_lag, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 versus unifi_list_mc_lag_domains or unifi_get_lag, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., that a domain ID must first come from the list tool). Usage is only implied by the word 'Get'.

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