zeasm_list_lookalike_domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only.' It adds behavioral value by disclosing the response shape: one triage row per lookalike domain, including fields like risk, registration state, and deception methods. This is useful since there is no output schema, though it omits pagination/rate-limit details.

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 three sentences and completely front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the read-only nature, then the return shape and follow-up usage. There is no filler or redundant elaboration beyond what is useful.

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 list tool with two parameters and detailed schema documentation for `query`, the description sufficiently explains the domain of results and the relationship to the getter. It could mention pagination or how to discover `org_id`, but the missing pieces are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides an extensive description for `query` with JMESPath examples and warnings, so the narrative need not repeat it. For `org_id`, the description adds only 'for an organization,' which provides basic semantic context but not detail about where the ID comes from or its format. This is moderate compensation for the missing schema description.

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 verb and resource: 'List EASM lookalike domains for an organization.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling getter `zeasm_get_lookalike_domain` by describing the triage-row output and pointing to the getter for 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?

The description gives a clear follow-up path: 'Use the returned `lookalike_raw` with `zeasm_get_lookalike_domain` for full detail.' This effectively separates the list/get responsibilities. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the list/get split is clear.

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