domain_summary

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'read-only' simply repeats that. The word 'bounded' adds a small behavioral expectation of limited scope, but there is no detail on pagination, truncation, rate limits, or how bounds are applied, so the added transparency is minimal but not contradictory.

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 text is short, but it achieves brevity by omitting necessary information. 'Domain summary' is redundant with the tool name, and 'read-only' duplicates the annotation, leaving the description as an under-specified fragment rather than a concise, information-dense explanation.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this definition is far too thin. An agent cannot know what a domain summary represents, which arguments to supply, what the return value looks like, or how to select appropriate values for filters like fidelity or provenance.

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 has 9 optional parameters with zero descriptions, and the tool description names none of them. 'Bounded' weakly suggests that start/end/limit control scope, but fidelity, source_id, provenance, browser, profile, and domain are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the 0% schema 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 names a generic operation, 'bounded read-only archive retrieval,' so it is not a pure tautology, but it never explains what a 'domain summary' actually contains or how it differs from siblings like search, query, timeline, or app_usage_summary. The purpose remains vague: an agent can tell it retrieves something from an archive, but not what makes this summary distinct or what output to expect.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use domain_summary versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. With 14 sibling tools and no selection criteria, an agent has no basis to choose this tool over search, query, or app_usage_summary.

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