describe_live_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a query/read operation and lists return fields, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, error conditions, or whether this affects system state. For a 7-parameter query tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 structured with Args/Returns sections which is helpful, but includes redundant parameter documentation that duplicates the schema. The core purpose statement is only 4 characters ('查询域名列表'), making it overly terse. The return field documentation is useful but could be more efficiently integrated.

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 7-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it documents return fields, it doesn't explain the overall response structure, error handling, authentication needs, or how pagination works beyond the page_size/page_num parameters. The lack of output schema means the description should provide more complete return value documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, and constraints. The description merely repeats parameter names without adding any additional semantic context, format details, or usage examples beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 states '查询域名列表' (query domain list), which clearly indicates a read operation to retrieve domain information. However, it doesn't specify what type of domains (live streaming domains) or differentiate from similar siblings like 'describe_live_domain' (singular). The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about the resource scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'describe_live_domain' (singular) and other describe_* tools, but the description doesn't explain when to use list vs. single domain queries, or how this relates to other domain management tools like add/delete/enable_live_domain.

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