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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial business context: credits are real, non-refundable money, buying re-quotes and refuses before sending on price drift, 409 means already-owned rather than a different name, missing registrant fields are named in the refusal, and 5xx/connection loss is an UNKNOWN outcome requiring reconciliation. This is far beyond what the annotations 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-loads purpose, then workflow, then failure handling in a logical order. The sentences are dense and long, but for an irreversible credit-spending tool nearly every clause carries operational weight, so the verbosity is defensible rather than padding.

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 still covers the preconditions, confirmation semantics, refusal taxonomy, and ambiguous-outcome reconciliation an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool safely. Nothing material 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 coverage is 75% and already documents confirm, contact, and expected_credits. The description adds interplay the schema does not: confirm AND expected_credits are jointly required, expected_credits must mirror the approved quote, and contact fields come from the refusal's missingFields. Hostname remains undescribed in both, keeping this short of a 5.

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 ('Register ONE NEW web address through Soclo'), and the emphasis on 'ONE NEW' distinguishes it from connect/disconnect/refresh/list siblings. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from soclo_domain_quote without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite ('First use soclo_domain_quote'), the approval requirement, and the exact conditions that trigger refusal (price moved, buying switched off, balance short). It also names recovery paths (quote again, reconcile with 'list'), leaving nothing to inference.

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