domains_getDomainAuthorizationCodeV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: 'Requesting a new code invalidates any code retrieved previously.' This adds value beyond the schema. It does not describe other side effects or safety, but the key mutation aspect is communicated.

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 concise with three sentences that front-load the purpose and include a behavioral note. It avoids fluff and is easily scannable.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and key behavior. However, it omits details about the response format or any error cases, which could help an agent make better use of the output.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond 'domain name,' so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the specific resource 'authorization (EPP) code for a specified domain' for the purpose of transferring a domain away from Hostinger. This is unique among sibling tools, which mostly concern VPS, hosting, or other domain operations.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'obtain the code required to transfer a domain to another registrar.' It also warns that requesting a new code invalidates previous ones, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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