Get DKIM keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value (key pair with selector, public and private key) and the 404 error behavior for domains without DKIM keys. It does not mention authorization requirements, security sensitivity of the private key, or whether any side effects occur, but the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence provides useful information: the key pair composition and the 404 error case. No redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter getter with full schema description and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, return value, and an error case, which is largely complete. A minor gap is the lack of response format details or security notes, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully describes the single 'name' parameter as 'The domain name', and the description adds no extra semantics beyond confirming the parameter is the domain. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies without any additional value from the description.

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 retrieves the DKIM key pair (selector, public and private key) for a domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_domain_dkim, set_domain_dkim, and delete_domain_dkim by indicating this is a read operation.

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 usage when you need to read existing DKIM keys and mentions the 404 return for domains without keys, which suggests that generation or setup might be needed otherwise. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as generate_domain_dkim or state when to use them over this tool.

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