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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false and openWorld=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape ({domain, archived}), that archived domains are included, and the authorization requirement. Pagination, ordering, and rate limits remain unspecified.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then access caveat. No redundant or filler text.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully documents the return array and the archived-domain inclusion, plus the access requirement. It is essentially complete for a simple list tool; only parameter format details are left to the schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the single organizationId parameter is undocumented in structured fields. The description conveys that the parameter selects the Suped organization whose domains are returned and that billing-only memberships are rejected, but it omits format details (24-char hex ObjectId) and that the value is required.

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+resource ('Lists all domains') scoped to a named organization, which cleanly separates it from create_domain, list_organizations, and the DMARC tools. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or spelling out when listing domains is the right call versus another lookup.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and scope, and it adds a real prerequisite ('requires regular organization access; billing-only membership is insufficient'). However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance (e.g. when to use get_dmarc_records instead).

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