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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: what each status means operationally, that refused includes the reason to fix, and that pending_registry usually completes in about five days. The 'never here' note reinforces the read-only contract with an actionable constraint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the trailing sentences each carry a distinct payload (cartId scoping, when to use, the dashboard-only constraint). The status parenthetical is dense but each definition is load-bearing for interpreting results, so little could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

One optional parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety — the description fills the remaining gap by explaining what the returned status values mean. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 100% and the single cartId parameter is already documented as the value returned by prepare_domain_transfers. The description's 'Pass cartId to see one checkout's batch' adds only the framing of a batch view, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter 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?

States a specific verb-plus-resource ('where the customer's inbound domain transfers stand, one row per domain, with counts') and enumerates the exact status buckets returned. That distinguishes it cleanly from list_my_domains (all domains) and get_migration_status (site moves) without the agent needing to open a 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use after prepare_domain_transfers, or when they ask "did my transfers go through?"'. It also draws a hard boundary — 'Codes are entered in the dashboard, never here' — preventing the agent from attempting a mutation this tool cannot do.

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