unifi_list_mc_lag_domains

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the domain concept and returned fields. It does not go beyond the schema to disclose behaviors such as pagination implications, rate limits, or site-scoping caveats, so it only modestly supplements the annotations.

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?

One concise sentence establishes the resource and concept, followed by a short return-field list. No filler, repeated schema information, or redundant phrasing.

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 a fully documented input schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for safe invocation. The only missing guidance is explicit sibling differentiation, which is a usage-guideline concern handled elsewhere.

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 limit, filter, offset, and siteId all documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so it stays at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Description opens with the verb 'List' and the exact resource 'MC-LAG Domains', then defines the concept. It clearly contrasts with sibling unifi_get_mc_lag_domain via list vs get and with unifi_list_lags by specifying MC-LAG domains.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is stated. The list-vs-get distinction is implied by the name, and the conceptual definition makes the use case reasonably clear, but the description does not tell the agent when to choose this over similar list/get tools.

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