Get CDN domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag is redundant. The description does add one piece of non-structured context - the exact upstream route GET /cdn/4.0/domains/{domain} - useful for agents deciding whether to fall back to invoke_cdn_api, but it says nothing about error behavior (e.g. unknown domain) or what data comes back.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The '[READ]' prefix is mildly redundant against readOnlyHint=true, but it costs almost nothing.

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 single-resource lookup with no output schema, the description should ideally sketch what is returned (domain status, configuration, timestamps). It does not, leaving the agent to discover the response shape empirically; the endpoint pointer partially compensates.

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%: the single 'domain' parameter carries a format example, a length bound and a regex pattern. The description only echoes the path placeholder {domain} and adds no syntax or normalization detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 information for one CDN domain'), and the 'CDN' qualifier distinguishes it from the similarly named get_vod_domain, get_live_domain and get_vads_domain siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with list_domains, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 rather than stated: retrieving 'one CDN domain' by name suggests single-resource lookup versus list_domains, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative tool is named. The official endpoint reference hints at the underlying API contract but adds no routing guidance.

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