List domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and filtered to the authenticated client's accessible Agency Plan websites, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination defaults, or domain item fields.

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 long with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the filter guidance is provided in a separate, clear sentence.

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 list tool, the description covers what the tool returns, its scope, and the available filter. There is no output schema, so an explicit mention of the response item structure would improve completeness, but nothing essential to calling the tool is missing.

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%, so page, per_page, and website_uuids are already documented. The description adds the useful intent of website_uuids as a narrowing filter, but does not add detail about pagination semantics or expected value formats 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 states the tool returns a paginated list of domains tied to Agency Plan websites accessible to the authenticated client. The verb and resource are specific, and the 'Agency Plan' qualifier helps differentiate it from generic domain list tools, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 scope is implicitly clear: use this for domains associated with Agency Plan websites. The description also instructs when to use the website_uuids filter, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as domains_getDomainListV1 or other hosting list tools.

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