get_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does state that this is a fetch operation returning a JSON string of domain details. It does not disclose not-found/error behavior or access requirements, but for a simple read-by-ID tool the basic behavior is adequately characterized.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. The Args line is slightly redundant with the property name, so it is not flawless, but there is no real waste.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the resource, ID parameter, and return format are present. It is incomplete because it leaves usage-versus-sibling decisions and error behavior to inference.

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 compensate. The Args line (domain_id: The domain ID) merely restates the property name and adds no practical detail about where the ID comes from, its format, or its relationship to organization/domain resources.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('domain'), and the retrieval criterion ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from list/search siblings in broad terms. It is not a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like list_domains or search_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 phrase 'by ID' implicitly tells an agent to use this when a domain identifier is already known rather than searching or listing. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not mention any alternative tools.

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