get_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the purpose and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The lack of output schema or elaboration on response format leaves the agent uninformed.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative without being verbose. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool but lacks some context.

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?

Given no output schema and a domain details tool, the description does not mention what kind of details are returned (e.g., expiry, nameservers). It also doesn't clarify how this differs from list_domains or other getters. The context is incomplete.

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% on two simple parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions ('Domain name', 'Provider name, or omit to auto-detect'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get details for a specific domain', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other actions (e.g., check_availability, create_dns_record) or get other resources (e.g., get_certificate_status, get_whois_contact).

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with check_availability or list_domains, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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