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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the real payload: this is the mutation that activates the domain, the failure return is `verified: false` with diagnostic contents, and DNS propagation can take up to 48 hours. That is genuine context beyond the structured fields.

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, the action and scope first, then the failure-handling guidance. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 usefully describes the failure-path return value and the timing caveat, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. It stops short of describing the success-path result shape, but the activation effect is stated.

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 site_id and user_goal are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., that site_id must be the same site the domain was claimed on), so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check the DNS records for the domain') plus the side effect that follows success ('make the domain live on the site'). It also names the prerequisite sibling claim_domain, so the agent can distinguish it from claim_domain and remove_domain without opening a 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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: run this after claim_domain, and on failure do not re-claim — wait and retry. That is a direct when-to-use / when-not-to-do-something-else rule pointing at the sibling tool.

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