domains_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what data is returned (desired, observed, effective, DNS records, checks, next actions), indicating a read operation. It does not mention potential side effects, but the description is sufficiently transparent for a read 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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and then details the returned data. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 (2 required params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the purpose and return data. It could mention error cases or empty results, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both required parameters ('domain' and 'project_id'). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('one ProjectDomain aggregate') with specific included fields (desired, observed, effective, DNS records, checks, next actions). It distinguishes this tool from sibling domain tools like 'domains_list' (which likely returns multiple) and action-oriented tools like 'domains_activate'.

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 that this tool should be used when you need detailed aggregate information for a single domain, contrasting with 'domains_list' for multiple. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other domain operations.

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