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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those annotations: provider charges may apply, and a user approval in BEON PASS is required before execution. It still omits what happens to any existing domain and any DNS/verification steps.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, then cost, then approval prerequisite. Efficient and well-ordered, though it is terse for a 9-parameter mutation.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with 9 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers only cost and approval. It leaves the parameter surface and the domain's post-creation state undocumented, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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; the two required ones (project_ref, hostname) are self-evident by name, but the seven BEON-approved workflow parameters (approval_id, beon_* fields) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Only an implicit link between 'approval_id' and the BEON PASS approval is suggested, which is insufficient compensation.

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 ('Initialize a custom domain') and a clear operational fact. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as supabase_activate_domain, supabase_reverify_domain, or supabase_delete_domain, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should pick this over activate.

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?

It gives one prerequisite (BEON PASS approval before execution) but no statement of when to use this versus the other domain lifecycle tools (activate, reverify, delete). The reader is left to infer that this is the creating/setting-up step.

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