Get domain renewal information

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 the response includes status and expiration date, but does not disclose error behavior, domain existence requirements, or whether the renewal status has particular semantics beyond that.

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?

Exactly two sentences: the first states the core operation and output, the second states the intended use case. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the important output fields and the purpose. It could be improved by noting that the domain must belong to the account or enumerating possible status values, but these are not blocking.

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% and the only parameter 'domain' is described as 'Domain name'. The description does not add format, validation, or ownership nuances beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action verb ('Retrieve') plus a specific resource ('renewal information for a specified domain') and lists key output fields ('status and current expiration date'). This clearly distinguishes it from domain listing, forwarding, and billing sibling tools.

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 second sentence explicitly states the intended use case ('build renewal automation and expiry monitoring') and scopes it to a single domain. It does not name alternatives such as domains_getDomainDetailsV1 or billing_enableAutoRenewalV1, but the provided use-case context is clear enough.

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