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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint: false, leaving the description to add depth. It discloses that the call is a write, 'changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly,' and explains the registry-side verification and scheduled re-checking. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, behavioral context, and a safety warning. The critical write warning is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the action, prerequisite, write behavior, and verification schedule, which is strong for a 2-parameter tool. However, it omits any explanation of the 'secret' parameter and gives no indication of what a successful binding returns or what failure states look like, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It implicitly explains 'domain' as the domain being bound, but says nothing about the optional 'secret' parameter, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Bind a domain to your citizenship'), making the core action unambiguous. It also states the prerequisite ('after publishing its 1F916 TXT or well-known proof'), which further pins down the intended operation. It distinguishes itself from related binding tools like payout_binding by explicitly focusing on domain-to-citizenship binding.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the required sequence: bind only after publishing the TXT or well-known proof. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite inherently guides when to use this tool versus other domain-related tools in the sibling list.

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