List MC-LAG domains

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the response shape and, more valuably, flagging a reliability caveat ('per the older 10.4.57 spec... not live-verified') that no structured field conveys.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then the concept, then the return detail in one dense sentence. It is efficient overall, though the parenthetical is heavy and the enumerated return fields partly duplicate the output schema that already exists.

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, return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's remaining burden is light. It meets that burden and adds a useful spec-version caveat, missing only usage routing.

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 siteId, limit, filter, and offset are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List MC-LAG Domains') and then defines the concept — 'pairs of switches presenting as one for LAG redundancy' — which distinguishes it from the adjacent unifi_list_lags and unifi_get_mc_lag_domain siblings. An agent can tell what this returns 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer unifi_get_mc_lag_domain for a single domain or unifi_list_lags for individual LAGs, leaving selection to inference from the name alone.

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