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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the 'changes nothing' phrasing largely restates that safety profile. It does add useful context that it reads live pages and returns a diff, but discloses nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or limits on the preview.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the dry-run constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return format need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains is a complete picture of a read-only preview for a one-parameter tool, with only 'when to use vs list_fixes' left implicit.

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% and the single domain_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including a pointer to list_domains). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb (show) and resource (the change each proposed fix would make to the domain's pages) plus the output form (before/after diff). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_fixes, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'A dry run: it reads the live pages and changes nothing' implies it is the safe preview step taken before committing fixes, but the description never states when to pick this over list_fixes or what the apply/next step is. Usage is only implied.

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