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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the exact request must be user-approved in BEON PASS before execution. That approval gating is the most valuable behavioral detail here, though rate/return behavior is not addressed.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the approval caveat. It is appropriately sized for a single-purpose operation, though the brevity is partly the cause of the parameter gap.

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 an 8-parameter, destructive-annotated tool with no output schema, the description covers only purpose and the approval gate. It says nothing about the required project_ref, the approval_id linkage, or the beon_* context fields, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call from the description alone.

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 8 parameters, and the description explains none of them. The required project_ref, the approval_id that ties into the stated BEON PASS workflow, and the six beon_* context fields are all left undocumented. With such a large, undocumented parameter set, the description should compensate and does not.

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: 'Retry verification of a custom domain.' This distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings like supabase_get_domain and from supabase_initialize_domain/activate_domain by emphasizing re-verification. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles the initial verification or status lookup, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Retry' implies usage after a prior verification attempt failed or is pending, and the description adds the precondition of BEON PASS approval. However, it never states when to use this instead of supabase_get_domain (status check) or supabase_activate_domain, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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