exchange_list_remote_domains

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and with zero parameters there is little behavioral complexity to disclose. However, it does not explicitly mention absence of side effects, required permissions, or output characteristics, leaving some implicit.

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 short phrase with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, though extremely minimal rather than richly informative. It earns a solid score for conciseness.

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?

Given zero parameters and low complexity, the description is minimally viable for invocation. However, it does not explain what remote domains are, differentiate them clearly from accepted domains, or indicate what data is returned. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such context, which is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add anything about parameters, making the baseline score of 4 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 'List remote domains' uses a specific verb and resource, making the operation clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming 'remote domains' as opposed to 'accepted domains' or 'mailboxes'. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no additional context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 40 sibling tools including exchange_list_accepted_domains and exchange_list_servers, the description does not state any conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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