list_parked_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It's a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated. The description does not disclose edge cases like whether the list includes only parked domains for the current account or all domains system-wide. It is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the name.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word adds value, and it's front-loaded with the action. No wasted 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (0 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It tells the user what the tool does and what it returns (a list). However, it could benefit from a note about the scope of 'all' (e.g., all domains in the account), but this is not critical for a basic list operation.

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 schema fully covers any parameter information. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('parked/aliased domains'), which distinguishes it from related tools like list_domains and list_addon_domains. The verb and resource are concrete and unambiguous.

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 context is clear: this tool is for listing parked/aliased domains. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the intended use is evident from the description and tool name. Sibling tools with overlapping purposes (list_domains, list_addon_domains) are distinguishable, but no direct guidance is provided.

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