get_domain_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get detailed info' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or any side effects. The description lacks behavioral depth beyond the surface.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope, no redundant words. Efficiently communicates purpose and expected output fields.

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 single parameter and simple retrieval nature, the description is fairly complete. Missing are potential prerequisites (e.g., domain must be registered with the service) or output format, but no output schema exists so description could be slightly enhanced.

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 one parameter 'domain' described as 'Full domain name, e.g. example.com'. The description does not add value beyond the schema, but is adequate given the parameter's simplicity. 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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed info for one domain' and enumerates specific data fields (status, dates, WhoisGuard, DNS provider, modification rights), making it highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_domain_contacts or get_dns_hosts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of similar siblings, though the description implies it aggregates multiple domain details. The agent must infer usage from sibling tool names and the listed fields.

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