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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing permissions checks, free-tier restrictions, and required warnings. No contradictions.

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 longer than necessary but each sentence adds essential guidance. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but still well-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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, and prerequisites. It does not describe the output format, but the name implies a status object. Overall adequate for a read tool.

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?

Only one parameter (communityId) with 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain the parameter beyond implying it's a community identifier. The clarity that business/community are interchangeable provides minimal additional meaning.

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 it gets aggregate custom-domain status for a managed community, and clarifies that business and community are interchangeable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_custom_domain_status or get_business_custom_domain_status.

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 gives explicit guidance: before offering, check permissions; FREE businesses cannot use; call check_business_tool_access first; show grace-period warning and resubscribe link; never proceed when blocked. It provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with prerequisites and alternatives.

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