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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description meaningfully adds that Plesk refreshes this statistic only about once a day, so values can be up to 24 hours stale and are not real-time — a genuinely useful freshness caveat beyond what annotations provide.

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, zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded and the freshness caveat follows. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the returned metrics and the staleness behavior. It lacks only routing guidance against overlapping siblings like get_storage_breakdown.

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% (the 'domain' parameter is fully documented with an example), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond confirming the scope is a single domain, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb (abrufen) and concrete resource scope (Speicherplatz-, Traffic- und Postfach-Nutzung einer Domain). It clearly conveys what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_storage_breakdown, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for checking a domain's disk/traffic/mailbox consumption, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when to prefer get_storage_breakdown or get_website_report instead. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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