domain_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and notes that the auth code is included only 'where the registry exposes it,' which is useful conditional context. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid or out-of-account domains, or what happens when fields are missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers high information density: what is returned is enumerated, the scope is constrained to one domain, and the read-only nature plus conditional auth-code caveat are included. No wasted words.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it enumerates the return fields and the read-only behavior. Minor gaps remain, such as input format specification and error behavior, but nothing critical for an agent to invoke it correctly on a known account domain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — the schema only declares a string 'domain' with no description. The description names the parameter implicitly ('one domain in the account') but does not compensate for the schema gap by specifying expected format (e.g., example.com vs. www.example.com, IDN/punycode, trailing dot). The parameter name is self-evident, but format semantics are left unaddressed.

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 clearly identifies the resource (one domain in the account) and the scope of what is returned (status, contacts, nameservers, transfer lock, renewal mode, auth code). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like domain_list (list vs. details of one) and domain_check (availability vs. existing account domain), though the verb is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as domain_list, domain_check, contact_info, and nameserver_info overlap meaningfully, and the description does not state which scenarios route to domain_info instead of those tools.

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