zeasm_list_lookalike_domains

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

Description adds value beyond annotation by detailing output contents (lookalike, impersonated domain, risk, registration state, deception methods) and how to leverage the returned field with another tool. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Two sentences plus a list-like description of output fields. Front-loaded with main action. Efficient with no redundant words.

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 no output schema, description explains the output structure and how to use it with another tool. Lacks mention of pagination or result limits, but is otherwise complete for a list tool with few parameters.

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 50% (only 'query' has description). The description does not explain the meaning of 'org_id', leaving it undocumented. The 'query' parameter is described in schema, but description doesn't add further meaning. Compensation is insufficient.

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?

Clear verb ('List') and resource ('EASM lookalike domains') with explicit scope ('for an organization'). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'zeasm_get_lookalike_domain' by noting this returns a triage row and the other provides full detail.

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?

States 'Read-only' and suggests using companion tool for full detail, providing context on when to use this (overview/triage) versus alternative. However, does not explicitly list when not to use.

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