ecp_domains_list_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. It states the exact data returned (every domain), which is sufficient for a simple list tool. No side effects or special behaviors are implied, and the description doesn't omit anything relevant for a tool with zero parameters.

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 with zero waste. It immediately states the action and scope, and the qualification '(primary + additional)' is essential and placed right where it matters. Everything present earns its place.

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 parameter-less list tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: it lists every domain, specifies that both primary and additional are included, and ties to the account. There are no missing details that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly, given the simple nature of the 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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exists; the schema already covers the empty parameter set completely. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameters.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'every domain (primary + additional) on this account' clearly define the tool's function. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling ecp_domains_list_additional by covering both primary and additional domains, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

The description implies this is the comprehensive domain list, contrasting with the sibling that only lists additional domains. While it doesn't explicitly name the alternative, the phrase '(primary + additional)' signals that this is the full-list tool, and no exclusions are needed. This provides clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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