Get IT Glue Domain

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by mentioning the return content ('Domain details including registrar and expiration') and the optional 'include' parameter for related credentials, which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point-like sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. The formatting enhances readability while keeping the content compact.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema but annotations provide safety context), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return content adequately. However, it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings and additional behavioral details like error handling or authentication requirements to reach full completeness.

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%, with clear documentation for all parameters in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'include' can fetch 'passwords for related credentials' and notes the return format options, but these details are largely redundant with the schema's descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single domain by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'itglue_list_domains' (which lists multiple domains) and other 'get_' tools for different resource types. It precisely defines the scope as retrieving one domain rather than a collection.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'by ID', suggesting this tool is for retrieving known domain records rather than searching or listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'itglue_list_domains' for browsing or other 'get_' tools for different resources, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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