alternative_distribution_domains__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds contextual detail about verified domains and the marketplace scenario but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, or response formats beyond what the schema implies. No contradiction with 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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by the endpoint path. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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 list tool with three optional params and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and context. The schema describes the parameters and available fields. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the response shape, but the field list and list semantics make this inferable. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a descriptive comment (limit, next_url, fields). The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the endpoint, so it adds no extra semantic value. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'domains verified for EU alternative distribution', with an explanatory clause distinguishing it from App Store distribution. The endpoint path is included, and the name itself differentiates this list operation from get/create/delete siblings.

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 context (EU alternative distribution, marketplace vs App Store) that implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'use the get endpoint for a single domain.' Sibling names hint, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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