get_domain_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that fuzzy matching is supported for domain_name and states the return structure ('Full domain details with entities, business rules, flows and their steps'), giving the agent a clear expectation of the read-only nature and output. It does not mention side effects or edge cases, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 compact and well-organized with an opening summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value: the summary explains what the tool does, the args explain parameters with examples, and the returns sets expectations. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

With a simple 2-parameter interface, an output schema, and a description that covers both the purpose and return payload, the description is complete for the agent's invocation needs. The project parameter's optionality is implied by the schema default, and the description's examples help disambiguate domain_name.

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 schema provides only titles (0% description coverage), but the description compensates fully. It explains domain_name with concrete examples ('authentication', 'transfer', 'payroll'), notes fuzzy matching, and clarifies project as 'Project name.' This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Get detailed info about a specific business domain' and enumerates the included content: 'entities, rules, flows, steps.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the enumeration clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_domain_overview or get_domain_flow_detail by emphasizing 'detailed' and listing all components.

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 implies usage for retrieving a full domain model with fuzzy matching on the domain name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context ('detailed info') and the enumerated contents provide clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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