Get incoming domain move

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the 404 response when no move exists, and the implication that the endpoint can be used for status polling. It does not describe side effects (none expected) or rate limits, but the disclosed 404 behavior is valuable.

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 three succinct sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides the key edge case (404) and a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: the domain required, the 404 condition, and the intended use case. It doesn't describe the success response structure, but that is reasonable to infer from the resource name. The tool is simple enough that this is adequate, though slightly more detail on the returned move object could push it to a 5.

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%, with both 'domain' and 'force_sync' documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed 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 resource 'incoming move for a specified domain'. It also distinguishes this singular getter from the list variant (getIncomingDomainMoveListV1) and accept/reject siblings by focusing on a single domain and the use case of checking acceptance status. The 404 note further clarifies the precise scope.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use this endpoint to check whether a domain addressed to you is still waiting to be accepted.' This gives clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., the list endpoint for multiple moves), so it falls short of a full 5.

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