App Url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Side effects: none (read-only)' and notes the default scheme, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose error handling, edge cases (e.g., no domains), or return format (though output schema covers that). This is adequate for a simple read-only wrapper but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the side-effect note and default are stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only wrapper with an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and scheme default. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but that's a different dimension. The missing edge-case behavior is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the scheme parameter by stating 'defaults to https:// scheme', which adds meaning. The app parameter is not described beyond its name, but it is self-evident from the tool's purpose. Partial compensation, not thorough.

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?

States a specific purpose: deriving public URLs from domains. It clarifies it's a wrapper over domains:report, which hints at its relationship to lower-level tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and the verb+resource are clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like app_domains or domains:report. The phrase 'convenience wrapper' implies it's for convenience, but no conditions, exclusions, or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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