infomaniak_get_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context by specifying the categories of information returned, but it does not go beyond that to disclose potential error behavior, prerequisites, or other non-obvious traits. This is mild added value over the 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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a concise parenthetical list of included details. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description provides sufficient context about what data is returned (DNS management status, DNSSEC, IDN, errors). The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only notable gap is the lack of relationship clarification with the sibling infomaniak_get_domain_full, which is not critical for basic invocation.

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 has one parameter with a clear description ('The domain name, e.g. example.com'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Get') and resource ('domain'), and lists the information categories covered (DNS management status, DNSSEC, IDN, errors). This clearly indicates what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool infomaniak_get_domain_full, so it misses the full differentiation.

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 for retrieving detailed domain information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like infomaniak_get_domain_full or infomaniak_get_domain_resources. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present, making the usage context only implicit.

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