whodb_platform_org_domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping behavior that workspace targeting is per-call and does not change defaults, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or auth requirements beyond that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the targeting note, with no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's workspace description, which slightly dilutes value but does not bloat the text.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and targeting semantics. It is sufficient to call correctly, though it omits whether results are paginated or empty on no-match.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the nested workspace object. The description only restates the workspace {host, org, project} fields, adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List domains configured for the selected organization'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar org-scoped read siblings like whodb_platform_orgs, whodb_platform_org_members, or whodb_platform_org_sso; the agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative. An agent is left to infer why it would call this versus org_sso or org_resources when hunting for org configuration data.

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