Domains and owners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: results are filtered to "only the domains this caller may read", which tells the agent the output is authorization-scoped and may be incomplete relative to a full domain list.

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 primary purpose front-loaded and the access-scoping caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description therefore only needs purpose plus access scoping, which it provides. It stops short of noting any cap, pagination or ordering behavior, which is a minor residual gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The schema's empty properties object is consistent with the description's implied take-everything-visible semantics.

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 the resource (domains) and the returned attribute (owners) explicitly, so the agent knows it enumerates domains. The verb is implicit ("What domains exist") rather than a direct "List domains", and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like find_datasets or get_dataset, though those operate on a different resource so there is little real confusion.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool for domains and that the caller's read permissions cap the result set. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative tool for a narrower lookup.

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