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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavior: email running over the redirecting domain is lost on removal by default, an empty list is a valid answer while an unfetchable list is an explicit outage that must never be read as 'no redirects', and staging copies appear but are not removable by remove_domain_redirect.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveats, and every sentence carries operational value (direction, email loss, empty-vs-outage, staging). It is long, but the length is justified by the number of distinct edge cases rather than padding.

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 tool with annotations already covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the intended answer shape, the empty-result semantics, failure semantics, and the staging ambiguity plus the caution not to guess. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully reinforces the counterintuitive direction of the single argument with a concrete 'alte-domain.de leitet auf neue-domain.de' scenario, reducing the risk of passing the wrong domain.

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: lists the domain redirects pointing to a given domain, with ID and attached data. It explicitly positions itself against siblings, naming redirect_domain as the writing counterpart and remove_domain_redirect as the follow-up, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (read counterpart to redirect_domain, prerequisite for remove_domain_redirect) and which domain to pass, including a worked example clarifying that the argument is the TARGET of the redirect, not the source. This is exactly the kind of when/when-not routing an agent needs.

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