arvan_get_domain

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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description reinforces this with 'Get', which is consistent. However, no additional behavioral details are provided (e.g., whether it only works for existing domains, rate limits, or partial error states).

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 a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the core functionality without any extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should ideally mention what kind of details and settings are returned (e.g., CDN config, DNS records, SSL status). Without this, the agent cannot anticipate the response structure. Additionally, the parameter is not explained, making the tool incomplete for effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'domain' parameter, and the tool description does not explain what the parameter represents (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). This leaves the agent to infer the value, which could lead to errors.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('details and settings for a CDN domain'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'arvan_list_domains' or 'arvan_get_dns_record', which might cause 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that this tool retrieves a single domain's full settings, while 'arvan_list_domains' returns a list of domains. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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