get_email_domains

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 that the tool 'gets' email domains, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not provide usage context or clarify return behavior, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps.

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 input schema already provides a description for the single 'site' parameter with 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, essentially restating the purpose. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description does not introduce any new 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 ('Get') and resource ('available email domains') with a scope qualifier ('for a site'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a unique resource type, and there is no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended usage is implied by the tool name and description but not stated directly. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, which is a notable gap given the many sibling tools.

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