List WANs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a real capability boundary beyond the schema: the API exposes only id and name, and there is no live link status or throughput, verified against a specific version — useful expectation-setting.

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?

Three compact clauses in one line: what it does, what it returns with its limitation, and when to use it. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 fields need not be re-explained, yet the description adds valuable caveats anyway. The only minor gap is that pagination through limit/offset is never acknowledged despite those parameters existing.

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, offset, and siteId all documented (including the API default of 25). The description adds nothing about pagination or the siteId requirement, 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 WAN interface definitions') scoped to a site, which no sibling covers. An agent can distinguish it from unifi_list_devices, unifi_list_networks, etc. 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?

Gives clear usage context ('Use for: WAN inventory, multi-WAN topology'), which orients the agent toward the right scenarios. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g., where to get link status instead), so it is context without routing.

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