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

Going well beyond the annotations, it discloses a hard rate limit (up to 3 moves a year per license), an audit property (logged), a permission requirement (download permission), and the blast radius of the default call (omitting app_id moves every site license for from_domain). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before mutating state.

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-loads the core rule and packs constraints into short clauses with no filler. A couple of sentences are telegraphic ('A site license follows one website'), but every line carries information 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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers rate limits, permissions, and scope of effect, which are the main risks. It is slightly thin on what happens to licenses that cannot be moved (e.g., when the yearly cap is hit) or what the response reports.

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% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: the omitted-app_id behavior and the 'same website only' constraint that binds from_domain and to_domain together.

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 ('move its licenses here') tied to a concrete trigger (the site changes domain). It also scopes out license classes that are unaffected ('All-sites and free licenses already cover every domain'), which sharpens the purpose without naming a sibling tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('If the site changes domain'), a when-not/irrelevant case (all-sites and free licenses), and the key selection rule for omitting app_id. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or prerequisite ordering, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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