List Site Domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds content-level context (results include aliases and certificate state), but says nothing about pagination limits, result volume, or auth/permission needs, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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, no filler, with the substantive content scope stated first and the complementary tool second. It is well front-loaded, though it is arguably too terse to cover a tool with 8 parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does name the key returned entities (domains, aliases, certificate state). Combined with the fully documented 8-parameter schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the description could have said more about pagination-following behavior.

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% across all 8 parameters, including the nested filter object, sort syntax, cursor, page_size cap and organization slug, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning at all, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names the specific resource (domains attached to a site) and adds the relevant content scope (aliases and their certificate state), so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_site or list_certificates beyond naming one as a follow-on, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives a paired-use hint ('Pair with list_certificates to audit SSL expiry'), which implies a workflow. However, it never states when to call this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing a site id from list_sites (that only appears in the schema).

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