list_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently explains output_format options, the save_to_file behavior including returning a temp file path for jq processing, and the JSON return type. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a straightforward listing tool.

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-structured as a short summary followed by an Args list and a Returns line. Each parameter earns its place by adding semantic value, and there is no filler or redundancy. It is informative without being bloated.

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 6 optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides all the information needed to invoke the tool correctly: filter behavior, pagination bounds, output formats, and return value handling. The output schema exists and covers field-level details, so the description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Every parameter is explained with meaningful semantics: organization_id filtering, partial name matching, pagination semantics, output_format variants, and the side effect of save_to_file. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 and resource: 'List domains from IT Glue.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_domains or get_organization_domains, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the related search_domains, get_domain, or get_organization_domains tools. The Args section documents how to filter and paginate, but it never states the appropriate usage context or exclusions.

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