vercel_get_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations: it does not mention authentication needs, team scoping, what happens if the domain does not exist, or what information is returned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it provides almost no structure or detail for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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 four parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what domain information is returned, how team scoping works, or how authentication via api_key/team_id should be handled. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer much of the behavior.

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 tool has four parameters and only 25% schema description coverage; only 'teamId' has a schema description ('Alias for team_id'). The description does not explain 'domain', 'api_key', or 'team_id', leaving most parameter semantics undocumented outside the schema. The description only indirectly implies the 'domain' parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a Vercel domain.' An agent can identify it as a read operation on a domain resource. However, 'information' is vague and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling Vercel tools or clarify what kind of domain information is returned.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Get information about a Vercel domain' implies usage only weakly, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools such as vercel_list_deployments or vercel_get_deployment.

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