Danh sách tên miền đã import/mua

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description. The description adds modest value by clarifying that both imported and purchased domains are returned and by defining what sandbox=true surfaces, but it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or auth requirements.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the parameter behavior trailing behind it; no filler words. It could be marginally tighter but every clause carries information relevant to invoking the tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean parameter, no nesting, no output schema) and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is close to sufficient. Still missing is any statement about what the listing returns structurally (paginated? per-domain fields?) or the default behavior when sandbox is omitted, which limits how confidently an agent can call it.

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% and the single sandbox parameter is already documented in the schema ("true → hiện domain sandbox"). The description restates the same semantics for sandbox, adding no format, default, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ("Liệt kê") and resource ("tên miền") together with a scope qualifier (import + mua / đã đưa vào MONA Cloud), so an agent can tell it lists owned domains rather than searching for new ones. However, it never names the sibling search tools (cloud_domain_search, cloud_domain_suggest) that occupy the adjacent semantic space, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The phrase "import + mua" hints at scope but the agent is left to infer that this is the inventory-listing call versus cloud_domain_search or mail_domains_list, which is exactly the ambiguity guidance should resolve.

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