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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that activation of routing is a side effect gated on the DNS record, and that a 'not-verified' outcome exists for propagation lag. It stops short of saying whether a failed check is retryable or whether anything is changed on failure, and the external DNS lookup sits oddly against openWorldHint=false, though this is not a direct contradiction.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and the activation effect front-loaded before the failure-mode note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, effect, and the main non-happy-path outcome. It is only slightly short on what a success response looks like and whether repeated calls are the intended recovery path for a not-verified result.

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 both domain_id and project_id are already documented with patterns and required status. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no hint about id formats, scoping, or how a domain_id is obtained (presumably from list_domains). Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check a DenkOps custom domain's DNS TXT record') plus the resulting effect ('activate routing'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_domain, remove_domain, and list_domains. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly the post-DNS-configuration step, and 'Reports not-verified if the record isn't visible yet' hints at retry behavior. However, it never states prerequisites (domain must first be added via add_domain) or when not to call it (e.g., for non-custom or already-verified domains).

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