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

The annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavior: it checks DNS records and activates the domain 'when both are found,' which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what 'both' refers to, what happens if one or neither record is found, or why the operation is destructive.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. It is efficient overall, though the phrase 'when both are found' is ambiguous without further context.

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 single parameter is fully documented and the annotations cover safety characteristics, but for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation the description should clarify which DNS records are checked, what happens on failure, and whether retries are safe. It provides some but not complete operational context.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the required link domain id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline score appropriate.

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: checking a link domain's DNS records and activating the domain when both records are found. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_link_domain or create_link_domain, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 word 'now' implies immediate verification, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_link_domain, list_link_domains, or other verification tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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