get_mc_lag_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates that this is a 'Get' operation. It does not disclose read-only guarantees, authorization requirements, potential errors, or side-effect-free behavior, leaving the agent to infer safety from the verb alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear mapping of each parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

All three required parameters are explained with enough detail to construct a valid call, and an output schema exists to describe the result. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit usage boundaries and behavioral notes, but the essential calling information is present.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: host accepted formats (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), site as name or ID, and mc_lag_domain_id as a UUID sourced from list_mc_lag_domains. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation domain'). It distinguishes from list_mc_lag_domains by singular/plural, but doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of the highest score.

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 for retrieving a single domain and notes the mc_lag_domain_id comes from list_mc_lag_domains, giving a workflow hint. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving usage to inference.

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