domain_zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only example suffixes, with no note on whether the list is static or account-dependent, no pagination or auth context.

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, front-loaded with the key noun, with no wasted wording. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens structure but keeps it maximally terse.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the definition is minimally viable, but it omits whether the returned zones are a fixed reference set and how they relate to sibling domain tools, leaving an agent with just enough to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema fully covers the (empty) argument set and the description has no parameter semantics to compensate for.

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?

Names a specific resource (available domain zones) with concrete examples (.ru, .com), which distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like domain_list (the user's own domains) or domain_check_to_register. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent of a reference lookup is clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related tasks (e.g. domain_list, domain_check_to_register). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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