Получение информации о домене

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

The description clearly states that the tool only returns information, implying a read-only operation, but the annotations have readOnlyHint: false, which contradicts this. This is an annotation contradiction and should be resolved.

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 a single sentence that starts with the action and resource, immediately communicates the purpose, and efficiently lists the key return fields. There is no unnecessary filler.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input (FQDN) and lists the main return fields. However, the annotation contradiction regarding read-only behavior undermines overall completeness and trust.

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 schema already provides a complete description for the fqdn parameter (required, full domain name with example), and the tool description also mentions 'по его FQDN'. No additional semantic information is added beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Возвращает' (returns) with a clear resource 'домене' (domain) and lists the returned data fields (статус, дата окончания, автопродление, whois privacy, поддомены). This distinguishes it from list_domains and get_domain_name_servers.

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 implies usage when detailed domain information by FQDN is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like list_domains or check_domain, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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