Получение доменной зоны по ID

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

Annotations are partially present (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds useful context by listing the specific fields returned. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not explain the non-read-only hint—there is no mention of side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Given annotations provide a baseline, the extra field details earn a 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action, followed by a list of return details. Every word contributes value, though the list could be slightly more structured. It is concise and efficient, earning a 4.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it clearly states the resource, the required identifier, and the specific information returned. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter tld_id with a Russian description 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID доменной зоны' (REQUIRED FIELD - ID of domain zone). The tool description merely repeats 'по её ID' (by its ID), adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Возвращает' (returns) and the resource 'доменной зоне (TLD) по её ID' (domain zone by ID), specifying the exact data returned: prices, registrar, grace periods, whois privacy. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling list_tlds, which lists all TLDs rather than getting one by ID.

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: to get detailed info about a specific TLD, you need its ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_tlds) or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, so it stops at implied usage.

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