list_domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the raw path GET /v1/domains and reveals nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or how multiple filters combine — no behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short lines with the verb-and-resource front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The bracketed endpoint path is slightly redundant with the tool name but is compact.

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?

With 8 optional parameters, full schema coverage and annotations present, the description is technically sufficient to call the tool. However it says nothing about how the filters interact or how paginated results are returned, which an agent listing domains would likely want.

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 all 8 parameters including the status enum and orderBy format are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (list) and resource (domains) with a clear scope ('all your domains'), and the endpoint notation confirms a collection read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling retrieve_domain, though the word 'all' implies the distinction.

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 phrase 'List and filter all your domains' implies the use case — bulk enumeration with optional filters — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus retrieve_domain for a single domain or list_pending_actions. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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