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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the effect of the detail parameter (more fields including SSL status, verification, connected blogs/landing pages) but does not explicitly state read-only nature, potential pagination, or behavior for empty results. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is just two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second explains the detail parameter. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers the main behavior and the key optional parameter's impact. However, it does not mention response shape or potential limits, but for a list tool with this level of complexity, the provided information is nearly sufficient.

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 schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by listing specific fields available at higher detail levels ('SSL status, verification, and connected blogs or landing pages'), which is information not in the schema's parameter descriptions. This elevates the score to 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all custom domains for the active brand.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and scopes it to the active brand, distinguishing it from other list tools like list_brands or list_assets. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states that the default is 'short' and instructs to pass 'detail=medium/full' for more fields, which is clear usage guidance for selecting the right detail level. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., a hypothetical get_domain), though none exists among siblings. The context is sufficient for a list tool.

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