get_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful detail that the payload includes settings and verification status. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown domain_id or whether the call has side effects such as triggering re-verification, which is the main remaining behavioral question for a verification-status read.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler and no repetition of schema fields. Nothing can be trimmed without losing the return-scope information.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool this is close to sufficient: the annotations cover read safety and the description names the returned content despite there being no output schema. A note on what happens when the domain is not found would make it fully complete.

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% and the sole parameter domain_id is documented in the schema as a UUID, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond the singular framing, which is appropriate but not additive; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a single custom domain') plus the scope of what comes back (settings and verification status), which separates it reasonably well from sibling mutators like update_domain or delete_domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_domain_options, so an agent still has to infer that this is the whole-domain read rather than a per-option read.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'a single custom domain' plus a required domain_id signals the retrieve-one-by-id case. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the option-level alternative, so an agent facing both get_domain and get_domain_options must reason it out from names alone.

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