infomaniak_list_domains

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes creation and expiration dates, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, pagination) are disclosed, but the annotation coverage is strong.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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?

The tool is a straightforward list operation with an optional parameter and an existing output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns, making it complete for its complexity.

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% for the single optional parameter account_id, which is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List every domain') and clearly identifies the resource (Infomaniak organization) and additional detail (creation and expiration dates). It distinguishes itself from siblings like infomaniak_get_domain (single domain) and infomaniak_list_organizations (lists organizations, not domains).

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 implies usage for listing all domains in an organization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as infomaniak_get_domain for a single domain or infomaniak_audit_dns_zones for DNS details. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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