get_domain

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds modest context by listing the returned fields, which is helpful because there is no output schema, but it does not disclose behaviors beyond that, such as behavior for nonexistent domains or permission requirements.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately lists the valuable return fields. There is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return fields. The single parameter is fully covered by the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to know what this tool provides, though it could briefly distinguish itself from check_domain_availability or list_domains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but none is needed given the schema's thorough explanation of the 'domain' field.

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') with a clear resource ('full details for one domain') and enumerates the exact data fields returned (lifecycle status, expiration, auto-renew, WHOIS privacy, transfer lock, nameservers). This clearly distinguishes it from list_domains and other siblings.

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 phrase 'for one domain' gives a clear context: use this when you need detail on a specific domain rather than a list of domains. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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