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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds value beyond that: it says the call is Free, that it returns DNS settings (important since there is no output schema), and that it 'changes the saved domain connection', which is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the key constraint, with no padding. The 'Free; changes the saved domain connection' clause is terse to the point of being a fragment, but it still earns its place by conveying cost and mutation effect.

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 one-parameter tool the description covers the essentials (what it does, cost, that it mutates the saved connection, that DNS settings come back). It never names the hostname parameter and gives no hint about prerequisites such as an existing domain record, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0% and the single parameter is never named or described; the description says only 'an address', leaving the agent to map that to the 'hostname' field and its 253-char format from the schema alone. With one obvious parameter this is a mild but real gap.

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+resource ('Connect an address') and scopes it to one the owner 'already owns', which implicitly separates it from soclo_domain_buy. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so an agent must infer the buy/connect boundary.

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 phrase 'an address the owner already owns' implies the precondition for using this tool, but no alternatives (e.g. soclo_domain_buy for new domains, soclo_domain_disconnect) are named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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