List website parked domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes parent domain and root directory per parked domain, which is not revealed in the annotations or schema. However, it doesn't discuss pagination, response format, or error conditions, which would enrich behavioral insight. With annotations covering safety, this is a solid 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a usage note and clarifies the returned data. Every word 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 list operation with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what information it returns. Missing are potential limitations (e.g., pagination, maximum results) but these are not critical for a basic list call. Given the low complexity and good annotation coverage, this is sufficiently complete.

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%: both required parameters ('username' and 'domain') have descriptions. The tool description adds context that the operation is for a 'selected website' and 'specific website,' which clarifies that 'domain' likely refers to the website's domain, but it does not provide additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 operation ('Retrieve all parked or alias domains') and the resource ('under the selected website'), and specifies that it returns 'the parent domain and root directory assigned to each parked domain.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_createWebsiteParkedDomainV1 or hosting_listWebsiteSubdomainsV1 by focusing specifically on parked domains.

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, 'Use this endpoint to inspect parked domain configuration for a specific website,' provides clear usage context and implies this is the read-only inspection counterpart to the create/delete parked-domain tools. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for creating or deleting) but given the tool name and the description, the intent is unambiguous.

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