lookup_domain_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output behavior ('Returns any conflicting signals') and gives an illustrative example. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, or other operational characteristics, though 'Get' implies a safe read.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a brief explanatory sentence and a straightforward args list, with no wasted words or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, output meaning, and parameter example. It lacks explicit usage guidelines, but that gap is already captured elsewhere. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'domain' is explained with a concrete format and example ('e.g. "nytimes.com"'), adding semantic meaning that the input schema lacks (0% coverage). This adequately compensates for the schema's bare string type.

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') and resource ('policy conflicts for a domain from the Maango registry'), and it differentiates from siblings like lookup_domain and lookup_domain_full by focusing specifically on conflicting policy signals.

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 alternative lookup tools. The description implies conflict checking but does not explicitly state selection criteria or mention alternative approaches.

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