Get domain details

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by revealing that the tool internally combines two distinct API calls ('domains.getInfo with the registrar-lock lookup') and explicitly states 'Read-only'. It also clarifies the scope of the data returned. No contradictions 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose and lists the data fields, the second clarifies the internal composition and read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It covers what is included, how the tool works (combining two lookups), and its safety. The presence of an output schema obviates the need to detail return values. A slight gap: it doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., domain not found), but this is minor.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'domain' with a clear example. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond echoing 'one domain', which is redundant. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a coherent single view of one domain' and lists the specific data points included (registration, expiry, registrar-lock, privacy, DNS). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that it combines multiple lookups into one call, making it the go-to for a comprehensive domain overview.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need a consolidated view of a domain without making multiple calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear from the 'one call' phrasing and the enumeration of combined data.

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