Get Domain Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's 'Side effects: None (read-only)' merely restates the annotation rather than adding context such as authentication needs, error behavior, or scope limits.

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 header-style layout (Purpose / Inputs / Returns / Side effects) is front-loaded and easy to scan, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial single-parameter read.

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 get with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, little is required and no output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. The main gap is the failure to disambiguate from `domains.get` and other domain siblings, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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%, with the single `domain` parameter documented as 'Domain name'. The description only lists `domain` under Inputs and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 names a specific resource (customer/account metadata) and gives the exact endpoint (GET /v1/domain-info/{key}), so the operation is identifiable. However, there are closely related siblings, notably `fortimail.domains.get` and `fortimail.domains.info.update`, and the description does nothing to distinguish this 'domain-info' read from a plain domain GET, leaving the agent unsure which to call.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (domains.get, domains.list, domains.info.update). No preconditions or exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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