Get Domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the DOMAIN_NOT_FOUND error code and the exact fields returned, giving the agent behavioral detail the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by a compact field list and a second sentence on the error case. Every clause carries information, though the long enumeration in the first sentence is slightly dense.

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 no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned fields and documents the not-found error, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool.

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 both parameters (domain, include_labels) are already documented in the schema. The description only lightly reinforces include_labels ('optionally labels') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a single domain's metadata) and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, TLD, dates, lock, privacy, auto-renew, API opt-in, labels. The word 'single' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_domains.

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?

Signals the scope ('a single domain in the authenticated account') and gives the failure condition (DOMAIN_NOT_FOUND when the domain isn't in the account), which tells the agent when the call is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly routing to list_domains for bulk needs, so it is clear context without named alternatives.

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