Domain filter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful piece of behavioral context — that the response includes the filter's full domain list, not just filter metadata — but says nothing about size, pagination of that list, or behavior when the id is unknown.

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 short sentence with no filler, but it is a noun phrase rather than a front-loaded verb statement, and its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than density.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the burden, yet it omits the id parameter's meaning, when to call this instead of the list sibling, and what happens on a missing/invalid id. For a reader tool on a multi-filter API this is thin.

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?

There is one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no explanation that it is the filter identifier, what form it takes, or where it comes from (e.g., list_domain_filters). With the schema silent and the description silent, the parameter's meaning is undocumented.

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 fragment 'One domain filter with its full domain list' identifies the resource and implies retrieval of a single filter including its domains, which distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_domain_filters. However, it lacks an explicit verb (get/retrieve) and never states that it is a lookup by identifier, so the purpose is inferable 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 on when to use this versus list_domain_filters (many filters) or get_filter_values. There is no mention of preconditions, required identifiers, or exclusions — the agent must infer that a singular 'one' result implies use when an id is already known.

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