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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the authentication requirement and the recovery path (session opens this tool, then call again). It stops short of covering rate limits or response shape detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence first, then a separate, clearly labeled ACCESS block. Both parts earn their place, though the auth block is slightly chatty with the parenthetical CLI hint.

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?

For a read-only single-ID getter with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data comes back and how to satisfy the auth gate. Remaining gaps (pagination/error behavior) are minor for a lookup of this shape.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'id' as the Domain ID. The description's 'by ID' only restates this, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific domain by ID') and enumerates the returned content (verification status, DNS records, provider connections). It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like check_domain_verification or check_domain_credentials, so it falls short of the top band.

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 access prerequisites (Proof account, authenticate or start_login) but no guidance on when to prefer this over list_domains or the various check_domain_* tools. Usage is only implied by 'by ID'.

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