get-domain-summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that failures per entity-type are collected in caveats, and mentions the use of extractFields for reducing response size. This provides good behavioral insight for a read tool.

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 three sentences long, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, benefit, and error handling. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return content (domain config, counts, samples) and mentions caveats. It could be slightly more explicit about entity types, but it's adequate for a summary tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond schema: it explains entityLimit caps and that full counts are still returned, and provides detailed usage examples for extractFields including wildcard and backtick syntax.

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 it returns aggregated domain config plus per-entity-type counts and samples, and explicitly says it replaces 5-7 round-trips, which distinguishes it from individual get tools like get-domain-by-name or get-table-summary.

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 explains that the tool consolidates multiple calls, implying when to use it instead of sequential round-trips. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria.

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