List custom domain trash

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing the catch-all recreation behavior and that the endpoint has no server-side pagination and is locally paged. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but discloses the key non-obvious behavioral trait.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then why the trash exists (behavior), then pagination mechanics. Front-loaded and free of redundancy despite repeating a few schema facts.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields (alias address and Unix deletion timestamp) and specifying the pagination contract. Nothing needed to call this read-only list tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents page_id and limit defaults/bounds; baseline would be 3. The description slightly exceeds baseline by explaining that pagination is local because the upstream endpoint lacks server-side paging, which adds meaning the schema cannot convey.

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 a specific verb (List) and a precisely scoped resource (a custom domain's deleted aliases / trash), and no sibling tool covers trash listing, so it is immediately distinguishable. The parenthetical '(its trash)' removes any ambiguity about what 'deleted aliases' means.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: audit what was removed, or verify an address is in the trash before reusing it. It does not name an alternative sibling or state exclusions, but the behavior rationale (catch-all not silently recreating) effectively frames the use case.

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