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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), it discloses two important traits: this tool may restore an existing soft-deleted project rather than always creating new, and it returns an `{ ok: false, error }` envelope on failure with explicit guidance not to blind-retry. It does not cover permissions or success-return shape.

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-loaded with purpose and only two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is a run-on (missing period between 'domain' and 'If this tool...'), which slightly hurts structure but not comprehension.

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?

Good handling of the failure path (error envelope, user-facing explanation) despite no output schema. It omits what a successful call returns (project object/id) and the domain input format, which matters for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 67%: context and llm_model are well documented in the schema, but the critical `domain` parameter has no description anywhere. The description only says 'for a domain' and adds no format, validation, or scope meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: create an advertiser project for a domain, or restore a soft-deleted one. It's clear, but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get-project/get-projects (e.g., by telling the agent to check existing projects first).

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?

It implicitly frames when to use (create for a domain, restore soft-deleted) and gives failure-handling guidance (explain error, ask user to resolve, don't retry blindly). However, it never names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, e.g., checking get-projects first.

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