get--v3-domain_name-complaints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all complaints', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (suggested by 'limit' and 'page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., date ranges, filtering). This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 phrase 'List all complaints', which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks necessary detail and structure to be helpful, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (domain_name, limit, page, address, term) are documented in the schema. The description 'List all complaints' adds no semantic information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'List all complaints' states a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what kind of complaints (e.g., email complaints, domain complaints) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-complaints-address'. It's better than a tautology but remains vague about scope and context.

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 such as 'get--v3-domain_name-complaints-address' or other complaint-related tools. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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