get_sdtm_domain_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return type, the 'latest version' fallback behavior, and the performance trade-off of include_codelists. It does not mention errors, authentication, or response size, but for a read-oriented structure getter this is reasonable transparency.

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 well-organized with a clear first sentence, Args, Returns, and Example sections. It is slightly longer than necessary and the example partially restates the first sentence, but every section adds practical value for invoking the tool.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main needs: what the tool returns, how to specify parameters, and a concrete call example. It is complete enough for basic use, though it could add a bit more detail about what variable attributes are included or how errors are surfaced.

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 0%, so the description must explain every parameter, and it does. It gives concrete examples for domain ('DM', 'AE', 'VS', 'LB'), version format ('3-4' or '3.4'), the default behavior for version and codelists, and the purpose of headers_.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get complete domain structure with all variables for an SDTM domain.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sdtm_variable_details (which is singular/variable-level) and get_sendig_domain_structure (which is for SENDIG rather than SDTM).

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 useful invocation context, such as the default for sdtmig_version and include_codelists, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when another sibling would be more appropriate. Usage is implied by the name and first sentence rather than directly guided.

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