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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the risky profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior — the tool returns a pending status until each check succeeds, implying a polling model. It stops short of warning that attaching a domain and HTTPS issuance have external, hard-to-reverse effects.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action sequence and the pending-return caveat front-loaded. It is efficient, though it largely restates the title rather than expanding it.

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?

This is a multi-step, externally visible mutation with no output schema and no annotation-level detail about failure modes. The description omits what happens if DNS ownership fails, whether a partial attach can be rolled back, how the pending status is polled, or that a prior hosting_save is needed — substantial gaps for a destructive workflow tool.

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 coverage is 67%: company and idempotency_key are documented, while expected_version has no description anywhere. The tool description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for that gap, but the documented majority of the schema keeps this at a baseline-adjacent 3.

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 names three concrete verbs and resources: check DNS ownership for the saved domain, attach it via Summer's hosting connection, and verify HTTPS. That is specific enough to separate it from summer_guides_hosting_get and summer_guides_hosting_save, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the obvious alternatives (hosting_get for reading state, hosting_save for changing the domain), nor any prerequisite such as requiring a saved domain first. The only contextual hint is 'Returns pending until each check succeeds', which describes output state rather than when to invoke.

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