list_mc_lag_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious pagination behavior: 'Drains all pages by default' and 'A capped drain is flagged incomplete rather than truncated silently.' This is genuinely useful and goes beyond a simple listing statement.

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 tight and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears first, followed by parameter semantics and pagination behavior. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 is present, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers required parameters, optional pagination controls, filtering, and the incomplete-drain behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains host formats, site formats, and the filter expression, and it gives practical meaning to offset/limit. This is strong compensation even though the schema still carries type/default details.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'List Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) domains on a site.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like get_mc_lag_domain and list_lags by resource type and operation scope.

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 gives clear invocation context: the host/site addressing, the default page-draining behavior, and how to request a single manual page with offset/limit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for correct selection in most cases.

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