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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees: it is read-only, does not propose/commit/authorize anything, and explicitly discloses HTTPS enforcement, redirect limits, timeouts, and SSRF protections including blocked network targets. This is valuable, non-redundant context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return contents, safety, and security constraints. Every sentence adds distinct 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?

The description covers purpose, return content, and important behavioral/security constraints, which is strong given the single parameter and supportive annotations. It does not detail the exact response schema or edge cases like what happens when a domain has no profile, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% and the single 'domain' parameter is already well described, including normalization to hostname. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Determine whether a domain publishes a Contribution Exchange profile.' It distinguishes itself from the get_* siblings by stating it returns the canonical manifest, policy URLs, signal URLs, and hosting mode, making its discovery role clear.

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 clearly implies this is the entry-point discovery tool for a domain's Exchange profile, and the sibling names (get_policy, get_signal, etc.) suggest follow-up actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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