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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, closed-world profile, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a full breakdown of the four status states and what each means operationally, plus the notable claim that it "works while the machine is offline." This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and return contents, then a compact inline definition list of statuses. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the run-on status enumeration is the only minor readability cost.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so adequately (host, status, record type/name/target, expires_at) plus status semantics. It omits pagination/empty-state and error behavior, which are minor gaps for this scope.

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%, and node_id even cross-references nerdit_list_nodes, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds only the framing that the domains belong to a single app; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ("List the domains of one app") and goes further to enumerate exactly what is returned (host, status, DNS record, expires_at). This clearly separates it from siblings like nerdit_add_domain, nerdit_remove_domain, and nerdit_check_domain.

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 implies usage through the status lifecycle and the "until verified" framing, which orients the agent to domain-verification workflows. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over nerdit_check_domain or nerdit_list_app_access, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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