list_expiring_domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining output formats, pagination parameters, and the save_to_file side effect of writing to a temp file and returning its path for jq processing. It does not address auth, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'list' plus the described return handling make the main behavioral profile clear.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then organized into a compact Args list and Returns line. Every line adds useful information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers all parameters, defaults, output variants, and the save_to_file workflow, and an output schema exists to cover return structure. Minor gaps remain, such as ordering, exact date semantics, and whether organization_id filters globally or just narrows results, but these are not severe given the available structured data.

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 fully, and it does. Every parameter is explained with meaning, defaults, and relevant constraints, including output_format values and page_size max of 1000 which are not present in the bare 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List domains expiring within a specified number of days.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic domain tools like list_domains, search_domains, and get_domain by adding the time-bound expiration scope.

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 when to use the tool (when you need domains expiring within a lookahead window), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It gives clear context but leaves it to the agent to infer that list_domains or search_domains might be better for unfiltered or query-based domain lookups.

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