cm_get_sending_domains

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true) but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema. It mentions 'verification status' which is a behavioral output detail, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error scenarios.

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?

A single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks details about the response format or verification status values. Given no output schema, the description could benefit from listing possible statuses or clarifying that it returns a list of domains.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's definition of 'clientId' as a hex string. The tool's single parameter is already well-documented, so no extra value is provided.

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 'Get all' and the resource 'sending domains for a client' while distinguishing from sibling tools like add, delete, copy, and authenticate. It also specifies the additional detail of 'verification status' which sets this tool apart.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cm_authenticate_sending_domain for checking authentication status). The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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