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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: it is a 'passive multi-probe' that resolves and fetches the domain, requires no API key, is rate-limited, and explains the result logic (any failing essential yields not_ready, etc.). This exceeds the information provided by annotations alone.

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 well-structured and concise despite containing substantial information. It front-loads the purpose, lists the checks, provides use cases, differentiates from siblings, explains result logic, and notes operational constraints—all in a compact, logically ordered paragraph without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (aggregating five distinct checks), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how results are determined, and what it returns (verdict, per-check statuses, shareable report link). It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds valuable clarification: it provides an example ('example.com') and explicitly notes that scheme and path are stripped, which prevents misuse. This additional semantic detail raises the score above the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a domain is ready to launch or migrate' and enumerates the five specific essentials it evaluates. It also differentiates from sibling tools like security_scan and individual lookup tools, making its unique role unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this right before flipping DNS to a new server, or to confirm a migration has landed.' It also directs users to alternatives: 'use security_scan for a security posture grade or the individual tools for depth,' making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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