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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the one-time payment, the no-wallet card/PromptPay fallback, the lease-live constraint, and the non-monthly nature of the fee. This gives get the full burden beyond the structured metadata.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers payment, Cloudflare exception, and error-recovery flow. Every sentence contributes practical information without 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the invocation result, the payment excepttion flow, and the post-payment polling/reethod. This is enough for an agent to successfully invoke and follow up on the operation.

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 description helps clarify the hostname parameter by saying 'Connect an existing hostname'. However, the required 'slug' parameter is never described or contextualized, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the schema 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 clearly states a specific action — connect an existing hostname via CNAME to sites.sornkan.com — and scopes it by noting this is not a registrar flow. This is enough to distinguish from the sibling tools, especially claim/renew/edit, because the resource and operation are explicit.

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 strong practical guidance: keep the CNAME proxied if on Cloudflare, handle the 402 payment flow, and poll preview_status/retry until live. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scenarios it covers make the intended context clear.

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