get_forward

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the safety burden is largely lifted. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that—no mention of what happens when no forward exists or of lookup scope—so it neither helps nor contradicts.

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 that names the resource first and annotates it with a concrete example; there is no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it shades into under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 0% parameter coverage the description should carry parameter meaning and it does not cover 'domain' at all. For a tool with two required, undocumented parameters it leaves the agent guessing about the domain argument's type and format.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies 'host' via the 'www or @' example, but says nothing about 'domain'—notably the schema permits either a string or a positive integer for it, an ambiguity the description leaves entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the forward') and clarifies what a relative host looks like with the 'www or @' example. It is distinguishable from list_forwards (single lookup vs. list) and create_forward/update_forward by the verb, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_forwards or get_domain, no prerequisites (must the domain exist? must the forward exist?), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name and the sibling set, which falls short of even implied guidance.

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