domains_getIncomingDomainMoveV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavior: returning 404 when no account is moving the domain to you. It also clarifies the tool's role in checking acceptance status. It does not disclose other potential traits like read-only nature, but the retrieval verb and 404 detail add value beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the action, noting the error condition, and providing the use case. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the use case, and an important error case. It does not describe the response structure, but that is likely self-evident from the tool name and context. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though naming the list alternative would add a bit more completeness.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including a detailed explanation of force_sync and its effect on the 'activating' status. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'incoming move' scoped to 'a specified domain,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like the list or accept/reject variants. It also notes the 404 behavior, uniquely identifying this as a singular lookup tool.

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 a use case: 'Use this endpoint to check whether a domain addressed to you is still waiting to be accepted.' This provides clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, though the singular scope implies when the list endpoint would be more appropriate.

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