air_get_domain

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

The description adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by specifying the two resolution methods and the data source (air_list_domains results). It is consistent with the read-only nature and provides useful behavioral details.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently conveys both lookup methods. No unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 lookup tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: two lookup paths, data source, and parameter relationships. Nothing is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds meaning by linking domainPid to air_list_domains and pairing orgSlug with domainSlug. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states the action (resolve) and resource (domain) with two distinct lookup methods: by pid from air_list_domains results, or by orgSlug + domainSlug. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 after air_list_domains (via pid) or via slugs, providing clear context for when to use each method. It lacks explicit exclusion statements or alternative tool references, but the guidance is adequate.

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