Get Domain Claim

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns claim status and the TXT record, and it indicates the polling behavior. It does not contradict the annotation and provides context beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded, immediately stating what the tool retrieves and how. It includes the essential information (input, output, usage pattern) without any waste or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return value (claim status and TXT record) and the intended polling loop. It does not enumerate possible statuses or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation, this level of completeness is sufficient.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'id' as 'The placeholder Domain ID created by the claim'. The description adds the exact provenance ('the domain_id from create-domain-claim') and calls it a 'placeholder Domain ID', reinforcing the semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, this additional clarification earns a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('latest claim for a domain'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-domain-claim and verify-domain-claim. It also specifies the input identifier ('placeholder Domain ID') and the output (status and TXT record), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear usage context: it tells the agent to poll until status is 'completed' and identifies that the input comes from create-domain-claim. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., versus verify-domain-claim), but the context is strong enough to infer its role in the claim verification flow.

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