cork_get_client_domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only list operation and adds useful context that domain UUIDs can filter cork_get_compliance_events. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what fields the listed domains contain, leaving the agent to infer some runtime behavior.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the most important precondition and a useful downstream pointer.

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 list endpoint, the description covers the core purpose, the required input source, and the consumer of the output domain UUIDs. Pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit output shape, but this is mitigated by the implied domain+UUID result set.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the client_uuid provenance already present in the schema and adds the downstream use of returned domain UUIDs. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List email domains observed for a client.' It also clarifies the downstream purpose of the returned domain UUIDs, making the tool clearly distinct from siblings like cork_get_clients and cork_get_compliance_events.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a client UUID from cork_get_clients.' This tells an agent where the required input must come from. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is otherwise clear.

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