get_domain

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safe-read profile, the description adds real value: it lists what the payload contains (verification status, DNS records, provider connections) and documents a concrete auth prerequisite and recovery path (PROOF_API_KEY or start_login). It stops short of describing not-found/error behavior, but the auth detail is above the annotation bar.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, with the access/remediation block clearly separated. The ACCESS paragraph is slightly long and repeats the account requirement, but every element (env var, restart, fallback login flow) is actionable rather than filler.

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 compensates by summarizing the returned fields, and it covers the auth gate that would otherwise block invocation. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around failure modes.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'id' as the Domain ID. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (domain) with a scoping key (by ID) and enumerates the returned content (verification status, DNS records, provider connections). This clearly distinguishes it from list_domains and the add/delete/verify_domain siblings.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies you must already have a domain ID (from list_domains), which hints at usage order, but the description never explicitly says when to use this vs list_domains or the verify_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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