zeasm_get_lookalike_domain

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

The description states 'Read-only', which is consistent with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation. It adds value by detailing the additional fields (description, registrar/registrant, lifecycle dates, remediation guidance) beyond the triage fields, giving the agent insight into the output composition. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise—three sentences that front-load the purpose, detail the output, and instruct on usage. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only get tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what it returns and how to call it. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'lookalike_raw' is the domain name from the list tool, but does not describe 'org_id'. Given partial explanation, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for one EASM lookalike domain'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by explicitly mentioning the lookup key source and the additional fields provided.

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 this tool (to get full detail for one domain) and instructs that the lookup key comes from 'zeasm_list_lookalike_domains'. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear. It provides a helpful link to the list tool, guiding proper usage.

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