domains_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does disclose that the tool supports pagination and search, and it scopes the operation to the user's account. However, it omits details like the return format, sorting behavior (despite the sort parameter), or any explicit read-only intent beyond the verb 'list'. Some key behavioral aspects are left to inference.

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 two short sentences with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the most notable capability (pagination and search) efficiently. Every word contributes value.

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 simple list operation with well-defined optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits mentioning the sort parameter, does not describe the response structure, and does not reference sibling tools for alternative use cases. A slightly richer description would make it fully complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only vaguely mentions 'pagination and search' which corresponds to page/limit/query but adds no new detail beyond what the schema provides, and it does not mention sorting. This matches the baseline score of 3 for full coverage.

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 action ('List') and resource ('domains in your ForwardEmail account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_get (for a single domain) or domain_create/update/delete. The scope is precise and 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 implies usage for retrieving all domains in the account, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like domain_get, nor does it state any exclusions or limitations (e.g., when not to use). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance beyond the obvious list-vs-single distinction.

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