pirsch_get_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the key behavioral nuance: the default domain returned depends on client scope. It does not discuss edge cases or side effects, but for a read-only getter, the scope explanation adds meaningful transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding scope context. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a no-argument getter, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what is returned, how it varies by scope, and provides usage guidance. It could explicitly mention pirsch_list_domains for the account-scoped case, but the sibling tool list already provides that context.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema inherently covers everything. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to add; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the Pirsch SDK's default domain.' It also distinguishes scope-dependent behavior (dashboard-scoped vs account-scoped) and references statistics queries, separating it from siblings pirsch_list_domains and pirsch_query_statistics.

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 gives clear context: dashboard-scoped clients can use this directly, while account-scoped clients 'should select one explicitly for statistics queries.' This implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (pirsch_list_domains).

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