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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: it provisions a live 24-hour subdomain, returns a one-time claim token, and mentions 'on a clean pass' implying failure conditions. It does not detail reversible effects or failure responses, but it covers the main side effects beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and flow are front-loaded, and each sentence carries essential information about the tool's purpose and outcome.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the invocation context, the precondition (trial from try_domain), and the result (provisioning subdomain and claim token). It does not explicitly state the prerequisite that a trialHandle from try_domain is required, but that is strongly implied. It also omits what to do with the claim token, but that is beyond the tool's 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (trialHandle and answers) are described in the schema. The description mentions 'Pass the trialHandle and your answers' but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. It adds no new meaning for the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb and resource: 'Answer the short safety questions for a trial opened by try_domain, then go live.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like try_domain (opens trial) and rent_domain by specifying its role in the trial flow and the outcome (provisioning a live subdomain and returning a claim token).

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 establishes a clear use context: it is for trials opened by try_domain, implying it is the step after try_domain. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use, but the flow is unambiguous. A dedicated exclusion or alternative reference would push this to a 5.

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