DLP web domains report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns all web domains, includes custom-group counts, and supports pagination. It does not contradict the read-only annotation.

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 main purpose and followed by the count detail and pagination note. No redundant or filler content.

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 read-only report with well-documented schema and good annotations, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned, the aggregation included, and pagination support. A full output schema is absent, but the core return information is covered.

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% with all three parameters (raw, page, pageLimit) described in detail. The description only mentions pagination, which aligns with page/pageLimit but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource ('all web domains deployed in DLP policies across the network') plus the key output ('number of custom groups each domain is associated with'). This distinguishes it from sibling DLP reports focused on devices, email, printers, 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 clearly conveys the use case: when you need a report of DLP web domains with custom-group association counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among the sibling DLP report tools.

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