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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful scope that it inspects verification and certificate status, but it does not disclose return details, auth requirements, or any rate-limit behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is perhaps too terse for a 9-parameter tool, but it wastes no words.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It gives purpose but leaves parameter meaning and optional context parameters undocumented.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not mention any parameter. The terms 'custom domain' and 'project' only weakly imply what id and projectId mean, and none of the optional beon_* parameters are explained.

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?

The description states a specific verb (inspect) and resource (custom domain verification and certificate status), which is clearer than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like railway_list_domains or domain verification tools from Supabase/Vercel, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies the tool is for checking domain status but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus railway_list_domains, railway_create_custom_domain, or sibling domain tools. It also omits prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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