Get outgoing domain move list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only incomplete moves are returned, which is meaningful for an agent expecting past or completed moves. It also hints at response content ('the accounts they are addressed to'). While it doesn't describe pagination or response format, for a simple read-only list with no parameters, this is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds the crucial filter, the third provides usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place; information is front-loaded with the main verb and object.

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 0-parameter read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (outgoing domain moves), the filter (incomplete only), and when to use it (track initiated moves). It doesn't specify the exact structure of each move object or pagination, but these are not critical for a list endpoint without parameters. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter detail because none exist, and the schema is already 100% covered. No improvement needed here.

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 'Retrieve all domains you are moving to other Hostinger accounts' – a specific verb (retrieve), resource (outgoing domain moves), and scope (all moves you initiated to other accounts). It distinguishes from incoming moves via phrase 'to other Hostinger accounts' and from single-move tools by being a list operation. The filter 'Only moves which have not completed yet are returned' further clarifies the exact set returned.

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 final sentence 'Use this endpoint to track moves you have initiated and the accounts they are addressed to' explicitly states a use case and implies this is for initiated outgoing moves, not incoming ones. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like domains_getIncomingDomainMoveListV1 or domains_getOutgoingDomainMoveV1, but the context from name and description is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context.

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