alternative_distribution_domains__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the endpoint and the verb 'Read,' which is consistent with the annotations. No rate limits, auth requirements, or error behaviors are disclosed.

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, concise sentence that includes the HTTP method and path. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple nature of a read operation and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic purpose. However, it does not explain the return format or explicitly guide the agent to use the list call first (though the schema's id field description does). Annotations cover safety, so the brevity is partly acceptable.

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 100% description coverage. The 'id' field is described as 'ID from the matching list call' and the 'fields' parameter includes an enum and explanation. The tool description only adds 'by ID,' which is redundant with the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Read'), the resource ('alternative distribution domain'), and the scope ('by ID'). It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like alternative_distribution_domains__list and create/delete.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies single-resource retrieval but does not mention that the ID typically comes from a list call or that listing should be used when multiple domains are needed. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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