getDomainsById

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and 'rate limit: 100 requests per 1m'. It does not describe error cases or the response shape, but for a simple GET-by-ID tool the disclosed behavior is meaningful and sufficient.

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 compact sentence that packs in the operation, rate limit, readonly behavior, and endpoint. Every clause provides useful information and there is no redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only GET tool, the description provides enough invocation context: endpoint, rate limit, and safety profile. It does not describe the return payload, but 'details' implies the response, and the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more.

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 schema describes `id` only as a required string with 0% description coverage, and the description adds little beyond the endpoint path containing `{id}`. The meaning of `id` is reasonably inferable from the tool name and resource, but the description could have explicitly clarified that it is the domain identifier.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get domain details', and the endpoint pattern `GET /postframe/domains/{id}` reinforces that this is a single-resource fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `getDomains` list tool, but the tool name and path make the distinction fairly clear.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `getDomains`. The only context is the name and endpoint, which imply by-ID lookup, but the description itself does not state usage criteria or exclusions.

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