Get Domain

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

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields, but because an output schema exists, this return-value detail is largely redundant; it does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, or domain-not-found handling.

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 compact sentences with no wasted wording, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the sibling-tool recommendation. Every sentence contributes useful information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned data, and discovery of valid domain names. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around domain-not-found behavior or prerequisites not being mentioned.

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%, and the single 'domain' parameter already has a clear description with format examples. The tool description adds only that the domain must be one on the account and points to list_domains for discovery, which is marginally useful but does not meaningfully extend 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 ('Returns the details of one domain') and enumerates the exact details returned: mail hosting status, SSL status, and domain pointer aliases. It also names the sibling tool used for discovery, so an agent can distinguish it from list_domains 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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use list_domains to discover domain names before calling this tool, which gives clear usage context and names the alternative. It does not state exclusions or what to do if the domain is unknown, but the core when-to-use guidance is present.

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