get_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and excels. It discloses that the call is recorded against the run, that it is the sole observable event supplying rules for a verdict, and that recording only happens when a run is active. It even clarifies that a fetch is merely 'fetched, never read,' adding nuanced context beyond the obvious read operation.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. The following paragraphs are detailed and each adds valuable context about audit recording, but they are somewhat verbose. Still, no sentence is wasted, and the structure is logical.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and rich behavioral nuances, the description is complete. It covers purpose, intended user, prerequisites, side effects, and the distinction from siblings. The existence of an output schema means return values need no elaboration.

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 only parameter, domain_id, is clarified with an example ('e.g. 'd01''), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (0% coverage). It could go further by explaining how to obtain a valid domain_id (e.g., from list_domains), but the example and context are sufficient for basic invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full document text for one domain, given its id.' It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Nothing else in this package returns rule body text,' making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states it is meant for the local agent driving the audit and provides a prerequisite: 'call begin_run first, then fetch each domain as you come to it.' It also clarifies when the call is recorded (run in progress) and that no other tool returns rule body text, serving as an exclusion criterion.

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