Buscar em um domínio

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses important behavioral traits: compact return (omits nulls), first-query domain extraction delay (~30s), and the semantic of `filters` and `query`. This adds significant context about performance and response structure that annotations alone do not convey.

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 concise and well-structured. Each sentence adds value: purpose, filter/query semantics, return format, linkage to get_item, and performance warning. No fluff or unnecessary detail, while remaining highly informative.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested filters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return format, use of sibling tools, domain extraction delay, and filter/query behavior. No critical operational aspect is missing for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that `filters` accepts keys from `list_domains` (AND-combined) and that `query` does substring matching on text fields. This goes beyond the schema's syntax, though other parameters like `limit` and `offset` are already self-explanatory.

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 'Busca filtrada em um domínio' (filtered search in a domain), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing search over retrieval (get_item), listing (list_domains), and refresh actions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how it relates to alternatives: `filters` keys come from `list_domains`, and each result has an `id` to use with `get_item`. This effectively tells the agent when to choose search versus retrieval tools, though it doesn't state a 'when not to use' scenario explicitly.

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