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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine beyond-schema context: which specific bots each switch controls, that both default to true unless the owner disabled them, that {name}.convika.page pages have no settings here, and that free and paid plans both apply. That is exactly the kind of edge-case and default information annotations cannot express.

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?

Structure is strong: a trigger clause, a returns clause, then a bulleted breakdown of the two bot switches, followed by usage and scope notes. It is somewhat long with multilingual keyword padding (独自ドメイン, ホームページ, and long bot name lists), but every sentence still carries content an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining what each AI-bot switch means. It also covers the ambiguous case (subdomain pages have no settings) and plan scope, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly unanswered.

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% and the parameter's own description already says 'id or hostname ... leave out to list all.' The description repeats this nearly verbatim ('Pass domain (its id or hostname) for one domain; leave it out to list them all'), adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 fits.

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 ('which custom domains their workspace has') and enumerates the exact data returned (id, hostname, status, page count, AI-bot switches). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_domain_status, list_domain_routes, and update_domain_settings because it is the settings/listing read.

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 opens with explicit trigger conditions tied to user intents ('which custom domains', 'how many pages one serves', 'whether AI bots may read their site'). It also explains the one-vs-all selection. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. get_domain_status) to route away from, which is the only missing piece.

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