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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds important behavior: it returns appraisal, contact, and buy link only when the domain's own _odvs DNS record confirms them, and otherwise reports the page as unverified and shows no figures. This is useful conditional-output transparency, though it does not cover other operational details.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately follows with the verification condition, making efficient use of the available space.

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 exhaustively described, and annotations cover safety. But this is a tool with seven required parameters and only 14% schema description coverage; the description does not explain six of them, leaving an agent without enough contextual understanding to supply correct inputs.

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%, with just the domain parameter documented in the schema. The description vaguely mentions 'figures in its forwarding link' and a returned 'contact', but it does not explain the required fairUsd, lowUsd, highUsd, confidence, methodologyRev, or contact parameters. It adds little meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a domain's parked for-sale page') and explains the DNS-based verification condition. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as read_for_sale_dns or appraise_domain, so an agent cannot fully tell when to prefer this tool without opening other 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no named alternative. The conditional verification behavior describes what the tool returns, not when an agent should call it instead of sibling tools.

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