Get domain authorization code

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral detail: requesting a new code invalidates any previously retrieved code. This is a side effect beyond the simple retrieval and is not covered by annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, a critical side-effect warning, and explicit usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose. There is minor repetition of 'transfer to another registrar' across sentences, but it remains tight and without fluff.

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-parameter read operation with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what it does, the side effect of invalidation, and when to use it. It doesn't mention the response format, but with no output schema, that is not required. Missing prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist, transferable) 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, and the schema already says 'Domain name'. The description adds minimal semantic value ('specified domain'), but essentially restates what the schema provides. It does not clarify format, encoding, or constraints, but given full coverage, a baseline 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 verb (Retrieve), the resource (authorization (EPP) code), and the purpose (so it can be transferred away from Hostinger). It distinguishes this from other domain operations like domain locks or incoming/outgoing moves by focusing on the code for transfer. Not a tautology; specific and actionable.

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 says 'Use this endpoint to obtain the code required to transfer a domain to another registrar,' providing a clear when-to-use. It also warns that requesting a new code invalidates previous ones, which is a usage caution. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, such as distinguishing from starting a transfer move (domains_startOutgoingDomainMoveV1).

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