get_domain

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds that it returns specific metadata fields and an error code if domain not found, providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then lists key fields and an error condition. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It could mention the response format, but the annotations and schema make it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description mentions 'domain' and 'include_labels' implicitly but adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so meets baseline.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves metadata for a single domain, listing specific fields like status, TLD, dates, etc. It distinguishes from list_domains (multiple domains) and check_domain (likely availability) by focusing on 'a single domain in the authenticated account'.

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 description implicitly indicates when to use (to get details of a specific domain you own) and explains the error condition for nonexistent domains. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like check_domain or list_domains, leaving some ambiguity.

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