List Domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is a read-only operation, no pagination behavior despite page/limit params, no default ordering, no indication of what a domain record contains. 'List' implies non-destructive, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema, the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description could have said what a listed domain includes (verification status, DNS state) or how results are paginated, which an agent choosing between list-domains and get-domain would benefit from.

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% — both optional pagination params (page, limit with max 100) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about pagination or defaults, 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('domains') with the scope 'in your Emailit account', which is enough to distinguish it from get-domain or verify-domain by name. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 word 'all' implies this is the bulk-retrieval path versus get-domain for a single domain, so usage is inferable. However, no alternative is named and there are no stated conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to reason it out from the tool name alone.

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