zeasm_get_lookalike_domain

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

The description adds the phrase 'read-only', which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=true but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Since the annotation already provides the safety profile, the description offers minimal additional value.

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 a single, concise phrase that immediately conveys the tool's action and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is well front-loaded.

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 the tool has full parameter schema coverage and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is minimally complete. It adequately informs the agent that this is a read operation for a single domain. However, it could mention that the lookalike_raw parameter is required and how to obtain it (e.g., from list tool). Still, it is sufficient for tool selection.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. According to the guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra meaning is added.

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: 'Get details for a specific lookalike domain (read-only)'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'details for a specific lookalike domain' differentiate it from sibling tools like 'zeasm_list_lookalike_domains' which lists all domains. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving details of a single domain, contrasting with the listing sibling, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., 'Use this when you have a specific lookalike domain name; use zeasm_list_lookalike_domains to browse'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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