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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so credit goes to the description for adding the DNS-confirmation gate: figures are returned only when the domain's _odvs record confirms them, otherwise the page is reported unverified with no figures. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the 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 tight sentences that front-load the action and then the verification condition. Nothing is padded, though the output/input ambiguity between 'Returns the appraisal, contact' and the required input fields slightly muddies an otherwise clean structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the annotations carry safety. However, for a 7-required-parameter tool at 14% schema coverage, the description leaves the six undocumented parameters unexplained and blurs whether appraisal/contact are inputs or outputs, so it is only minimally 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 description coverage is only 14% (just 'domain' is documented), so the description is expected to compensate for the other six parameters. It vaguely references 'the appraisal, contact and buy link' but never explains fairUsd/lowUsd/highUsd/confidence/methodologyRev/contact, and oddly frames appraisal and contact as returned values while the schema requires them as inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check a domain's parked for-sale page from the figures in its forwarding link.' It is clear what the tool reads, though it never names or contrasts with the closely related read_for_sale_dns sibling, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given relative to alternatives such as read_for_sale_dns, appraise_domain, or quote_domain_purchase. The only framing is the verification condition, which describes behavior rather than when an agent should choose this tool.

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