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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so this adds domain-specific behavior instead of repeating it: unverified domains silently capture no logs, verification happens outside the API in the dashboard, and an empty list means any link created now captures nothing. Those are exactly the failure modes an agent needs to know before proceeding.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then routing guidance, then the verification caveat — a sensible order. Slight redundancy between "to tell whether the team has any connected domains at all" and the closing sentence about an empty list, which costs a perfect score.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (id, url, verified state) and explains the empty-list case, which is the main branch an agent must handle. For a zero-required-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call 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?

Both parameters (intent, llm_model) have full schema descriptions, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, but none is needed since they are generic telemetry fields unrelated to the tool's domain logic.

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 ("List the team's connected domains (recording URLs)") and immediately disambiguates what a recording URL is: the domain a recording link starts from so Jams capture console and network logs. That definition distinguishes it from sibling link-management tools like createRecordingLink and getRecordingUrlVerifyLink without needing to open any schema.

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 to call this before createRecordingLink to pick the recordingUrlId, and to use it to determine whether the team has any connected domains at all. It also states a prerequisite condition — only a verified domain captures logs, and an unverified one must first be verified from the dashboard, with a doc link.

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