Get a custom domain

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, and the description adds the critical behavioral context that it 'does NOT run a live DNS check' and only reads what dropthis last recorded. This is valuable 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it states what is returned, clarifies a key limitation, gives use cases, and points to a sibling for list queries. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, this description is complete: it covers return fields (status, mode, DNS record, etc.), the stored-state behavior, and next-step guidance. It fully addresses the context needed for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema as 'The `dom_…` id or the hostname'. The description repeats this same information without adding extra semantic detail, so the 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?

The description explicitly states the tool 'Fetch one custom domain's STORED state' by ID or hostname, and clearly distinguishes it from dropthis_domains_verify and dropthis_domains_list. The verb+resource+scope are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('re-read the CNAME instructions', 'check a domain's state on a read-only connection') and names alternatives for other needs (verify, list). This is clear guidance versus siblings.

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