domains_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full disclosure. It mentions 're-observe' implying a side effect (triggering DNS check), but does not clarify if it is read-only, idempotent, or what state changes occur. It also omits details on response format, pagination, or latency for a check tool.

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 a single 14-word sentence, front-loading the core action and purpose. Every word adds value; no 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 tool has simple parameters (2 required strings) and no output schema or annotations. The description covers basic function and usage context but fails to describe return format or potential side effects. For a check tool, this is adequate but not 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (domain, project_id). The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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's verb ('Re-observe DNS/provider state', 'return') and resource ('ProjectDomain'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like domains_get by emphasizing it triggers a new observation, not just retrieval. The phrase 'preflight and drift detector' sets it apart from modification tools like domains_activate or domains_apply.

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 explicitly recommends use 'as a preflight and drift detector before validation cycles', providing clear context. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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