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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing OAuth-scope-dependent results (one domain vs. all) and the underlying GET endpoint. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the remaining gap.

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 the core list action, followed by the crucial id-reuse instruction and scope caveat. Every sentence adds information with no filler.

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 compensates by naming the fields returned, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is any note on result size or pagination for a list endpoint, but otherwise it is sufficient to call the 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'search' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description never references the search filter or explain its matching semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 (List) and resource (Pirsch dashboards/domains) and enumerates the returned fields (id, hostname, display name, time zone, role). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as pirsch_get_domain or pirsch_list_hostnames.

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 explicit downstream routing advice: 'Use the id as domain_id in every other tool', which tells the agent why to call this first. It also explains the scope difference between dashboard-level and account-level clients. It does not discuss when not to use it or how the optional search filter fits in.

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