zeasm_get_lookalike_domain

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

The `readOnlyHint` annotation already covers safety; the description adds value by stating the extra data returned (description, registrar/registrant, lifecycle dates, remediation guidance) and that it layers on top of triage fields. This makes the behavior more concrete without contradicting the annotations.

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?

At four short sentences, it front-loads the main purpose, states safety and output additions, then closes with the parameter source. No filler or restatement beyond the necessary 'Read-only'.

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 single-item getter, the description covers the object type, lookup key source, and output categories, which is enough for basic invocation. It is less complete because `org_id` sourcing and exact response structure are absent, but the no-output-schema context makes the provided field list a reasonable substitute.

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?

The description gives real semantics for `lookalike_raw` (the key from the list tool), which is useful beyond the schema. However, `org_id` is left completely unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, this leaves a material gap for an agent deciding how to fill the 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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource ('one EASM lookalike domain'), and the field list ('registrar/registrant + lifecycle dates, remediation guidance') clarifies what 'full detail' means. This distinguishes it from the sibling list tool `zeasm_list_lookalike_domains`.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use the `lookalike_raw` value from `zeasm_list_lookalike_domains`, framing the correct lookup workflow. It doesn't mention alternative tools for getting finding details, but the domain-specific wording and reference to the list tool make the intended context clear.

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