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

Annotations already show destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: the tool is part of a multi-step process that ends with calling apply again. It does not describe error handling or failure modes, but the core mutation and required follow-up are well communicated.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place by adding critical workflow information. No extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the entire intended usage lifecycle, references the sibling tool 'apply', and provides enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in sequence. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the conditional workflow (when to use action=start vs. action=verify, and how method relates to the verification step), which goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Free up a site that has an inactive previous registration.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'apply' by explaining when reclaim is needed ('If apply says the site is already registered').

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 a complete step-by-step workflow: use action=start to get verification options, complete one, then action=verify, then call apply again. It explicitly states the prerequisite context and what action to take, effectively guiding when and how to use the tool.

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