Get Domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable error semantics: DOMAIN_NOT_FOUND and that the error's `account` field distinguishes cross-account domains from missing ones, which the agent cannot get from annotations or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and field list, followed by the failure mode. Every clause earns its place and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the field list, the optional label behavior, and the notable error path. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so parameter meanings are already documented. The description notes include_labels is optional and adds the account-scoping constraint on `domain`, but does not add syntax beyond the schema's FQDN example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Get) and resource (metadata for a single domain) and enumerates the returned fields (status, TLD, dates, lock, privacy, auto-renew, API access, labels). This clearly separates it from list_domains and check_domain.

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 'in the authenticated account' phrasing implies scope and the error behavior hints at cross-account misuse, but it does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., 'use list_domains to enumerate' or 'use check_domain for availability'). Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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