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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it verifies against the account's default domain (joina.chat) and, when taken, surfaces a suggested available alternative in the response. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error modes, but this goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope (default domain), then the value-add on taken URIs. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, read-only) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema covers the parameter, and the description adds the domain scope and the alternative-suggestion behavior, which is exactly the context an agent needs to call it and interpret the 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (uri) is documented in the schema with an example ('my-agent'). The description confirms the parameter is a URI slug but adds no format, length, character, or case-sensitivity details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('URI availability'), with the concrete purpose ('for publishing an agent') and scope ('account's default domain joina.chat'). No sibling tool does URI availability checking, so it is clearly distinguishable from gnosari_create, gnosari_update, etc.

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?

The description implies when to use it: before publishing an agent, to avoid a taken URI slug. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the workflow context (pre-publish validation) is clear. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, which is the only gap.

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