get_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Return' and explains the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify data, or what happens if the domain_id does not exist. More explicit behavioral disclosure would improve this.

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 concise, using only two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and the second adds context. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and for whom it is intended. It does not mention potential error cases or how to obtain a valid domain_id, but these are reasonably handled by sibling tools (e.g., list_domains). Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides only the property name 'domain_id' with no description, but the tool description adds value by giving an example ('d01') and clarifying that the id identifies a domain. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 the verb 'Return' and the resource 'full document text for one domain', and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming 'Nothing else in this package returns rule body text.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 identifies the intended user ('local agent driving the audit') and explains the need ('needs the rules to apply them'). It also signals exclusion via 'Nothing else in this package returns rule body text.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., for metadata-only needs), leaving some ambiguity.

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