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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, meaning the tool can destroy data. The description adds important context: enabling terminates the hostname at pntr and logs every inbound request, and requires no existing DNS records. It doesn't explicitly state that disabling stops capture or that enabling may overwrite existing routing, but it goes beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by key behavioral detail and prerequisite. No waste, but not maximally efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, effect, and prerequisite. However, it lacks details on what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., what happens to existing capture settings or DNS records when toggling) and doesn't clarify whether disabling also removes logs. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Enable or disable) and resource (HTTP request capture for a subdomain). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like toggle_subdomain or toggle_wildcard—but those are 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 usage (the feature of capturing requests) and mentions list_requests/read_request for viewing logs, but does not give explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives or when-not-to-use. The prerequisite is stated but not framed as a usage condition.

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