Domain MONA Mail

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Xem/view' signals a read-only listing and it indicates the returned data (domain and verification status), but it does not clarify whether unverified domains are also returned, nor does it mention pagination or auth expectations. Adequate but not rich.

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 compact and to the point, with no wasted words. The Vietnamese and English sentences largely restate the same idea, which is minor redundancy, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 zero-input list tool, the description covers the essential context: when to use it and what it returns (domains and verification status). Since there is no output schema, the description adequately names the return content. Missing deeper details like response format are not critical here.

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 has zero parameters and full schema description coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds relevant context about what the tool scans, even though there is nothing parameter-specific to document.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'find verified sender domains' and viewing domain plus verification status. It is clearly a lookup operation, and the list intent is unambiguous even though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling mail_domain_add/verify/cloudflare tools.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context: when choosing a sending address, use this to check domains and their verification status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool, this is clear enough guidance.

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