get_auth_code

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent, externally-visible write-like operation. The description, however, uses the word 'get', which reads as a safe read and obscures that a POST actually generates a new transfer authorization credential (with implications such as invalidating prior codes and code expiry). There is partial friction with the annotations, but the endpoint notation saves it from being a direct contradiction.

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?

Short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is pure redundancy ('Get auth code for a domain by id' repeats the first). The only new information is the HTTP path in brackets.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what comes back (an EPP/transfer auth code string), whether the code expires, and that it is a sensitive credential. None of that is present, leaving an agent calling a credential-generating endpoint with no knowledge of the result or consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domain, x-trace-id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the domain argument beyond the schema, and 'by id' is mildly misleading about the expected identifier form, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the burden.

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+resource (get domain auth code) is stated, and the bracketed POST path hints at the underlying behavior. But the second sentence merely restates the first, and 'by id' is inaccurate since the required parameter is a domain name string, not an id. Nothing distinguishes it from the large set of domain-related siblings such as retrieve_domain or update_domain.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the many sibling domain tools, no prerequisites (e.g. domain must be owned/registered by the caller), and no note about when a new code is needed versus reusing one. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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