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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: generation strategy (prefixes, suffixes, blends, common endings) and the volume of results, which shapes how the agent should present output.

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, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information: what is produced and the availability caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return set (about 60 ideas across several construction types plus common endings) and the availability limitation. Minor gap: it says nothing about ordering or shape of the returned list, but an agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, including the 'first three distinct words' rule and the 'defaults to false' behavior for include_hyphenated, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only reinforces the one-to-three keyword limit and adds nothing about the hyphenated option beyond what the schema says.

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 specific verb and resource (turns keywords into domain name ideas) and quantifies the output ('about 60 domain name ideas (prefixes, suffixes, blends) plus common endings'). No sibling tool in the catalog does anything comparable, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

'Ideas only: availability is not checked' is an explicit exclusion that prevents an agent from using this as a registration/availability check. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to run afterward, but the scope boundary is stated clearly.

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