List vCDN domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that filtering is possible, but this is already evident from the schema. No additional behavioral traits such as pagination, default limits, or return format are disclosed. This is adequate but not enriching beyond annotations.

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 states the verb, resource, and optional filters without any fluff. Every word earns its place, 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 simple list tool with two optional filter parameters and no required fields, the description covers the core function. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the name and annotations suggest it returns a list of domains. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at the return structure or any limitations, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('domains', 'ssl_certificate_ids') documented. The description's mention of 'filtered by name or SSL certificate' restates what the schema already provides, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter detail.

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 resource ('Video CDN domains'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vcdn_domain (singular) or list_cdn_resources (a different resource type). It also mentions optional filters, adding clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from list_vcdn_resources, which could be similar in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., list_vcdn_resources, list_custom_domains), but the description does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios. The openWorldHint annotation is present but not leveraged to explain when this tool is appropriate.

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