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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing that the tool requires specific prerequisites (permission checks) and that it is restricted to non-free businesses. This informs the agent about access control behaviors not captured in annotations.

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 reasonably concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and actionable guidelines following. However, there is some repetition (e.g., 'business permissions' mentioned multiple times), and it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 preconditions and restrictions well, but it lacks details about the return value or how to obtain the communityId parameter. Since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the output format or structure. Overall, it is adequate but leaves 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?

The input schema has one parameter ('communityId') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not add any meaning to this parameter—it does not explain what a community ID is, where to obtain it, or its format. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List custom domains') and the resource ('for a community'). It also clarifies that 'Business and community refer to the same thing', which helps distinguish this from the sibling tool 'list_business_custom_domains'.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: before using this tool, the agent must check business permissions, call 'check_business_tool_access', and show warnings/links. It also states that FREE businesses cannot use this tool, giving clear when-not-to-use conditions.

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