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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it polls multiple DNS resolvers (Cloudflare/Google/Quad9) and returns per-record resolver results. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first states the action and resolvers; the second gives the usage flow and return type. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, polling flow, and return type. Minor gap: no guidance on polling timeout or error handling, but acceptable for a simple polling tool.

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% with description for order_id as 'The order_id from create_certificate.' The tool description does not add further details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool checks DNS TXT record propagation for a certificate order. It specifies it's step 2 of issuance and distinguishes from siblings like finalize_certificate. The verb 'check' and resource 'certificate propagation' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: step 2 of issuance, poll until all_found is true, then call finalize_certificate. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives or when not to use, the flow is clear and contextual from the sibling list.

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