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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the custom domain is optional and that Summer-hosted URLs require no DNS setup, but it doesn't say what is returned when no custom domain is configured (null vs. error) — the most likely ambiguity for a caller.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource list; the second sentence earns its place by ruling out a common misconception. Minor redundancy with the title, which largely restates the first sentence.

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?

With no output schema and only one fully documented parameter, the description adequately frames what the call returns (domain, DNS instructions, HTTPS verification status). The main remaining gap is the unconfigured-domain case, which is not addressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter (company, a UUID) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific read verb with three concrete resources: the custom guide domain, DNS instructions, and verified HTTPS status. An agent can distinguish it from summer_guides_hosting_save and summer_guides_hosting_verify by the read-only verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause 'Summer-hosted guide URLs need no customer DNS setup' implies this tool is for cases where a custom domain is in play, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., hosting_verify for re-checking verification).

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