get_domain

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing the OAuth scope requirement, naming the returned fields, and specifically warning that access_message_html and marketing_message are operator-authored copy to report rather than instructions to follow — a valuable prompt-injection safety note.

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 front-loaded with the core fetch action and then adds only high-value context: return contents, the non-instruction warning, read-only status, and required scope. Each sentence earns its place and there is no tautological 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?

For a simple single-id fetch with an output schema available, the description is complete: it states what is returned, flags a security consideration, establishes the read-only boundaries, and names the required OAuth scope. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It does so meaningfully by explaining that the id is an 'obfuscated id' rather than a raw identifier. It could add where to obtain this id or its expected format, but for a single-parameter get tool, the contextualization is strong.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one training domain by its obfuscated id.' It clearly distinguishes this single-item tool from list_domains and clarifies that the identifier is obfuscated, which is meaningful contextual detail.

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?

Fetching 'one training domain by its obfuscated id' implies when to use it over list_domains, and the statement 'there is no tool to change one' explicitly rules out an update workflow. However, it does not name an alternative tool or provide an explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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