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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safe read behavior. The description adds the output fields, but does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or performance characteristics. This is similar to the get_calls calibration example, where the added context is useful but incomplete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output details. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states what is listed and the key fields returned, covering the essentials. It could mention pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's basic function.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and no information is missing regarding inputs.

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 clearly states the tool lists the account's tracked domains and specifies the included data (scan score, last scan time, open alert count). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_alerts and list_scans.

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 provides clear context: this is for listing tracked domains rather than a single domain (get_domain) or other resource types. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a simple list operation the context is sufficient.

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