get_url_forwarding

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. The description only says 'Gets', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose response format, pagination, authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 redundant words. It earns its place and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to provide enough context for correct invocation and result interpretation. It does not describe the response format, any required parameters beyond domain, or domain formatting expectations. This is incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 100% (the only parameter 'domain' is described as 'The domain name.'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, but the description does not compensate or enhance the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and names the exact resource ('URL forwarding records') with a clear scope ('for a domain'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_url_forward/delete_url_forward (mutations) and get_dns_records (different resource type).

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 usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated. It clearly describes a read-only retrieval operation, but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_dns_records) or any exclusions. No when-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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