DLP email domains report

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by specifying that the result is a paginated list and includes custom group counts per domain. It does not introduce any behavioral contradictions, and the read-only nature is consistent.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key output detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 read-only list report with no output schema, this description adequately conveys what will be returned (domains and custom group counts) and that pagination is available. Combined with the full schema and annotations, the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of the 3 parameters (raw, page, pageLimit) with detailed descriptions, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It only mentions pagination in general terms, which aligns with the page and pageLimit parameters, but adds no extra semantic beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('all email domains deployed in DLP policies'), and the unique output aspect ('number of custom groups each domain is associated with'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling DLP network reports targeting devices, printers, products, rules, etc.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for listing email domains in DLP policies, making it obvious when to select it over sibling DLP network reports. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the domain-specific scope is sufficient guidance.

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