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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool returns an 'aggregate' status and requires permission checks. It does not contradict annotations. However, it lacks details about the returned data format, which would improve transparency further.

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 5 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though 'Business and community refer to the same thing' could be integrated into the first sentence. Overall efficient and clearly structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the aggregate status includes (e.g., active/inactive, grace period). It covers permissions and prerequisites well but leaves parameter semantics and return value unspecified. Adequate for a simple tool but with notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description should explain the communityId parameter. It only implies it is the ID of the managed community but does not provide format, source, or validation details. This is insufficient for a parameter without schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets 'aggregate custom-domain status for a managed community' and clarifies that business and community are interchangeable. This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like get_community_custom_domain_status by emphasizing the aggregate nature and the specific managed community context.

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 guidance: check business permissions, note FREE businesses cannot use, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warning and resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This tells the AI exactly when and how to use the tool and when not to.

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