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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those annotations: the call starts an async job, returns { auditId, queuedAt, etaSeconds } immediately, and requires polling and separate findings retrieval. It does not discuss failure modes, queue limits, or ETA guarantees, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core action and async distinction, then efficiently covers return shape and follow-up steps. Every clause contributes either routing guidance, behavioral context, or workflow instructions.

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 complex 12-parameter async tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return payload and the required polling/findings workflow. Parameter details are covered by the fully described schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has enough to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 12 parameters are already documented in structured form. The description adds only the high-level note that it uses the same args as discover_brand_domains and emphasizes passing the exact seed domain, which largely duplicates schema guidance rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 and resource: start an async brand-domain discovery for the exact seed domain. It explicitly identifies itself as the async sibling of discover_brand_domains, so an agent can distinguish it from the synchronous alternative without opening either 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?

It names the alternative discover_brand_domains and gives the selecting condition: that tool can run ~24s and time out interactive clients. It also prescribes the follow-up workflow, polling with discover_brand_domains_status and fetching findings with discover_brand_domains_findings once complete.

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