getDomainProperties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by stating 'Read'. It adds context about what the definition contains, but does not reveal deeper behavior such as version defaults, error cases, or response shape.

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 two tight sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second covers identifier flexibility. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only getter, the description lists the returned attributes and the accepted input forms, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It could mention priority if both name and domainUrl are supplied or default version behavior, but the schema already covers version and its default.

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%, so the schema already documents name, version, and domainUrl. The description's note that the object URL is accepted as an alternative adds little beyond the schema, which already says 'Object URL instead of the name.'

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies a clear resource ('DDIC domain'), and enumerates the exact properties returned (data type, length, decimals, output format, value table, fixed values). This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings such as setDomainProperties and createDomain.

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 clearly frames the tool as a read operation and explains the accepted identifier forms: domain name or object URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the read/write contrast with sibling tools is evident enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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