listExpiringDomains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it offers only a straightforward read-only listing behavior with an N-day filter. It does not disclose pagination defaults, ordering, response shape, or possible limitations (e.g., only active domains). The included API reference link can supplement, but the description itself adds only minimal behavioral 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and condition with no filler. The API reference link is a lightweight addition. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 description is sufficient for a simple listing tool with fully documented parameters, and the schema covers all arguments. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly describe the return format or mention default/max values for daysCount or pageSize. The API reference link helps close that gap, but the description itself is not fully self-contained.

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?

All three parameters (daysCount, page, pageSize) already have meaningful descriptions in the schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'N days' mirrors daysCount but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'List domains in the account that expire within N days.' The scope is clearly defined by the expiration window, which distinguishes it from related tools like listDomains (all domains) and countExpiringDomains (count only). The tool's intent is immediately clear without needing to inspect the schema.

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 clearly implies the use case—finding domains expiring soon—but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as listDomains or countExpiringDomains, nor does it mention any exclusions or pruning conditions. The context is understandable but not fully explicit.

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