impreza_domain_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and enumerates returned fields, providing clear behavioral context beyond the verb 'get'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or error conditions.

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 plus 'Read-only.' – extremely concise with no wasted words. Key information is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists the returned fields. It could optionally mention that the domain must be managed by the account, but this is implied by 'registered domain'.

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 coverage is 100% (domain parameter described as 'The domain name, e.g. example.com.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states 'Get a registered domain's details' and lists specific fields (status, dates, nameservers, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from siblings like impreza_domain_check (which likely checks availability) and impreza_change_domain.

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 for read-only inspection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like impreza_domain_check or impreza_set_nameservers. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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