getDomainInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the attribute list indicates what is returned. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or that the domain must belong to the account. The API reference link provides a pointer but not behavior detail.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that lists all key return categories and includes an API reference link. There is no filler, redundant wording, or repeated schema content. Every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what data will be retrieved and provides a reference link. Missing context includes that the domain must already be in the account (though the schema says this) and the exact meaning of 'dates' (registration/expiry/updated), but these are minor for this tool's 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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter ('Domain in the account') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or behavior. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Get' and names the resource with a precise list of returned attributes: status, dates, lock, privacy, NS, and contacts. This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools that handle only one aspect (e.g., domainLock, addPrivacy, changeNameServers) or raw WHOIS data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like whoisInfo or listDomains. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the condition that the domain must be in the account. Selection is left entirely to inference.

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