get_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-oriented inspection tool and enumerates the specific data elements returned. It does not discuss error behavior, auth requirements, or side effects, but the 'Show' verb makes the non-mutating nature clear.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Show one subdomain in full') and then lists the relevant content areas. No filler, repetition, or schema restating.

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 low-complexity read tool with two simple parameters, the description adequately describes the operation and return content. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of fields returned, though error behavior for nonexistent labels is not mentioned.

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 input schema already covers both parameters thoroughly, including the default for domain and the distinction between makes.fyi and agentdomains.co. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('one subdomain in full') along with the details returned (fqdn, DNS records, forward/proxy configuration, delegation state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_domains, which show multiple subdomains at a higher level.

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 context is clear: use this when you need complete detail for a single subdomain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, but the contrast with list_domains is strongly implied by 'one subdomain in full'.

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