get_domain_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-annotation context: the exact return shape, the meaning of each mode, and crucially the write-side consequence that non-conforming domains are coerced rather than rejected, with a `domain_adjusted` note surfaced on the writer's result.

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?

Front-loaded with the single-sentence purpose, then the return contract, then the usage rule. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the empty schema or the annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return shape itself, and with no parameters and full annotation coverage, nothing needed to invoke this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it appropriately spends no words 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Report the store's domain-casing policy', and the enumerated return modes make the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the counterpart setter (set_domain_case), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation, but the read-vs-write split is obvious from the verb.

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?

Gives an explicit usage directive with rationale: 'Read this before coining a new domain so its casing matches what will be stored.' That tells the agent when to call it, but offers no exclusions or named alternative for changing the policy (set_domain_case).

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