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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as the requirement to check business permissions and the restriction for FREE businesses. It also describes side effects like showing warnings and resubscribe links. However, it lacks details on success/failure outcomes or irreversible changes.

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 efficient, front-loading the purpose and then providing sequential instructions. It contains no fluff, but the density could be slightly improved with bullet points or clearer separation of steps.

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 description covers prerequisites and workflow but omits the output (e.g., success confirmation) and error handling (e.g., domain already in use). For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, more context would be beneficial.

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 description does not explain the two required parameters (communityId and customDomainId) beyond what is in the schema. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should provide context (e.g., how to obtain these IDs), but it does not.

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 'Connect an existing custom domain to a managed community,' using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect_external_custom_domain' by specifying 'existing' and targeting a managed community.

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 step-by-step guidelines: check business permissions, note FREE businesses are ineligible, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This fully addresses when and how to use the tool.

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