Get domain forwarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context by noting 'current redirect configuration,' but it does not elaborate on response format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This aligns with the calibration example where annotation-covered safety yields a baseline score of 3.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and usage context in the second. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title 'Get domain forwarding,' but the overall size is efficient and free of clutter.

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 single-parameter, read-only GET-style tool with annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It states what the endpoint does and when to use it, and the schema defines the only parameter. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'domain' parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured schema fields carry the explanatory burden.

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 specific verbs and objects: 'Retrieve domain forwarding data' and 'view current redirect configuration for domains.' This clearly identifies the operation as read-only and distinguishes it from sibling tools like domains_createDomainForwardingV1, domains_updateDomainForwardingV1, and domains_deleteDomainForwardingV1.

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 tool's usage context: 'Use this endpoint to view current redirect configuration for domains.' It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the intent is clear for an agent needing to inspect forwarding configuration.

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