Информация о домене

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While the GET method implies a read-only operation, the description does not mention authentication requirements, possible error responses (e.g., 404 if domain not found), rate limits, or any side effects. It also does not specify what information about the domain is returned, leaving the agent to guess.

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 extremely brief: a single phrase plus the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Информация о домене') and the endpoint adds technical precision. No words are wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still insufficiently complete. It does not explain what domain details are returned, how to handle non-existent domains, or any other contextual cues an agent might need for reliable invocation. The GET method is the only behavioral hint, and the description lacks the detail necessary for confident tool selection.

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 input schema provides a complete description of the `fqdn` parameter (100% coverage), including an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, merely echoing the endpoint template. According to the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and this baseline is met.

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 tool retrieves information about a single domain, with the explicit GET endpoint `/api/v1/domains/{fqdn}`. This differentiates it from sibling tools like `list_domains` (which lists all domains) and `get_name_servers` (which specifically fetches name servers), 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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that `list_domains` should be used for retrieving all domains, nor does it state any prerequisites or excluded scenarios. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and endpoint, not explicitly articulated.

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