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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: plaintext code returned exactly once, only the hash is stored, the code is emailed to the owner, regeneration revokes the prior code and cancels its pending incoming transfer requests, and the code expires in 7 days. This is exactly the lifecycle and side-effect context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers the critical behavioral notes (one-time return, revocation semantics, expiry) in five tight sentences. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

For a low-complexity, single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the return value, storage warning, side effects of re-invocation, and expiry. Nothing material an agent needs to call it correctly is missing beyond the minor id-clarification noted above.

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?

One required uuid parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying the id identifies 'one of the caller's active domains', but it never states the identifier's format or confirms it is the domain id, leaving a real gap.

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 and resource ('Generate a transfer code') and scopes it to 'one of the caller's active domains'. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like domain_transfer_request or domain_transfer_confirm.

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 implies the usage context (the domain must be active and owned by the caller) and warns about the consequences of regenerating. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus siblings such as domain_transfer_request or domain_transfer_revoke_code, leaving the routing to inference.

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