faostat_list_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List all' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it discloses nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether setup/refresh is required first — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as economy.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description still leaves the agent without sibling differentiation or group_code semantics. The output schema covers return values, but usage and parameter context are 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds almost no parameter detail. It hints that 'group' corresponds to group_code but never states the expected format, valid values, or what the lang parameter controls.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all datasets (domains)') and names the scoping container ('within a FAOSTAT group'). However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings like faostat_list_groups or faostat_groups_and_domains, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 a listing use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable to faostat_list_groups or faostat_groups_and_domains.

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