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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the domain starts unverified, it returns the DNS TXT record needed for ownership proof, and verification completes once that record is published.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Bind a custom domain') followed by the essential lifecycle detail. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing piece: the unverified-state lifecycle and what the call returns. It does not address duplicate-host or permission behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents host, role, and companyId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Bind a custom domain'), which is clearly distinct from domains_delete, domains_update, and domains_list. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (domains_verify), though the mention of the verification flow hints at the relationship.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The description does not tell the agent when to reach for domains_create versus domains_update or domains_verify, leaving routing to inference.

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