List domains

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 that results are paginated, but does so with a cryptic 'see `pager`' reference that is not a parameter here and matches no sibling tool, leaving the actual pagination mechanics unexplained. It also discloses the fields returned, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result volume or account/auth scoping.

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 short sentences with the core capability front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical 'see `pager`' is the one weak element — it is a dangling reference that costs a clause without conveying usable information.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is pagination behavior: with 7 optional parameters including page and limit, the description only gestures at paging rather than tying it to those parameters.

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 71%, and the two undocumented parameters (order_by, order_dir) are self-describing enums, so the schema carries most of the load. The description adds nothing about any parameter — the filtering semantics of name, renewable, and needs_renewal are only in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the domains') plus the account scope ('on the ZoneID account') and the fields returned (expiry, DNSSEC, autorenew, delegation). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_domain (single domain) and list_dns_records without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: call this when you need to enumerate domains. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_domain over this, or on what filtering combinations are supported for finding a single domain. The only directive given, 'see `pager`', points at something outside this definition and the sibling list.

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