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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: findings are classified into green/orange/red with an associated action, which tells the agent what the output looks like and how to interpret severity.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: verb and resource first, then the covered areas, then the output classification. Every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter, read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context (classified findings with actions) that the annotations do not cover. It omits edge-case behavior (invalid/unreachable domains), which keeps it just short of complete.

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 documented with an example (exemple.fr) and note that a full address is accepted. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Contrôle un nom de domaine') and enumerates the exact scope covered: registration details, DNS/hosting, email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and HTTPS certificate. This clearly separates it from siblings like detecter_wordpress or verifier_securite_plugin, which operate on different resources.

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 implies the use case (a domain-level health audit) through the enumerated checks, but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as detecter_wordpress or verifier_securite_plugin, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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