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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive but not read-only operation. The description adds useful context by naming the record types inspected, but the "Check" phrasing reads as a passive read and the description never explains side effects (e.g., whether a successful check marks the domain verified) or what happens on failure.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope arrive immediately. It is efficient but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than tight structure.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description should convey what a pass/fail result looks like, whether checks are idempotent-safe to retry, and any propagation caveats. None of that is present, leaving the agent guessing about return semantics and failure handling.

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 single `slug` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description partially compensates by tying the check to "a status page custom domain," implying the slug identifies the status page, but it never states this explicitly or explains format expectations.

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 concrete verb ("Check") and a specific resource ("CNAME and TXT records for a status page custom domain"), so an agent knows exactly what DNS verification work happens. No sibling tool overlaps this domain-verification role, so no differentiation is needed.

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 no when-to-use context: no prerequisite that the custom domain must already be configured on a status page, no note that DNS propagation may require retries, and no indication of when to call this versus inspecting the status page via get_status_page.

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