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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the API key is disclosed only once and cannot be re-read, the trial is free for 30 days with no card, and the catalog is unverified until domain proof. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before committing. It stops short of covering repeat-invocation behavior, which matters since idempotentHint=false and no guidance is given on what happens if a catalog already exists for the domain.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then eligibility, then the verification caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Covers the critical gaps for a creation tool with no output schema: what is returned (key plus next steps), its one-time visibility, and the trial terms. The remaining omission is repeat-call semantics for a non-idempotent operation on the same domain, which an agent would want before retrying.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only indirect meaning — the domain-verification sentence hints at why the domain parameter matters — but gives no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 ("Creates an AgentDNA catalog for a company") and immediately names what it returns (private API key plus next steps). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agentdna_get_catalog, agentdna_list_companies, and agentdna_search_products, which are all read-side operations.

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?

Provides a real eligibility gate — "Use only for a company you act for" — and explains the consequence path (catalog stays unverified until the domain owner proves ownership). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for cases where the agent should not start a trial, but the sibling set makes the read-vs-create split obvious.

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