get-domain-summary

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

The description discloses aggregation behavior and error handling via caveats. Without annotations, it lacks explicit safety/read-only status or rate limits, but the core aggregation and failure collection are conveyed.

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?

Three sentences with no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value. Highly concise.

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?

Lacking output schema, the description only partially describes return structure (config, counts, samples, caveats). It could detail response fields or format more fully for complete context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate descriptions for all three parameters.

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 is an aggregated domain scope combining domain config and per-entity-type counts/samples in a single call. It distinctly differentiates from sibling get tools by being an aggregate summary rather than a simple retrieval.

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 indicates when to use: to replace multiple sequential round-trips for domain summary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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