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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the check runs 'visto desde fuera, sin iniciar sesión' (no authentication needed) and returns plain-language hints. It stops short of describing rate limits or result structure, but the additions are valuable.

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 what it does, then what it checks, then when to use it — a clean three-part structure with no filler. It is slightly dense, but every clause (check list, output type, trigger phrases, pre-ticket timing) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations fully cover the read-only safety profile. For a single-parameter diagnostic tool, the description supplies all the scope, trigger, and auth context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% and the single 'domain' parameter has no description, so the description must carry it. It does so implicitly by framing the whole operation as domain-based (DNS, HTTPS/HTTP, SSL for a domain). The lone parameter is self-evident, so no serious ambiguity remains.

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 (diagnoses) and resource (a domain), then enumerates the exact checks performed (DNS A/AAAA/NS/MX, HTTP/HTTPS reachability, SSL certificate) and the output form (plain-language hints). This makes it immediately distinguishable from all siblings, which concern products, orders, policies, and guides.

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?

Gives explicit trigger scenarios in user language («mi web no carga», «sale no seguro», «no me llega el correo») plus timing guidance ('antes de abrir un ticket'). An agent knows exactly when to reach for this tool rather than filing a ticket or searching help.

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