list_domains

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation, that it returns verification status metadata, and that it requires a Proof account via API key or an authenticated session. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by the return behavior and a focused access note. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication requirements, account scoping, and the general return shape. It does not explain exact fields or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple list operation, and the access guidance is especially valuable.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all domains for the authenticated account.' It also mentions the return content, 'domain metadata including verification status,' which distinguishes it from singular get_domain and mutation tools like add_domain or delete_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?

The description gives clear context for the list action and explicitly explains authentication prerequisites. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over get_domain or verify_domain. Usage is implied rather than explicitly differentiated.

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