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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the authorization context ('authorized wallet') and the specific domain scope (.ton), but does not elaborate on return format or pagination. This adds some value beyond annotations but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does (lists .ton domains) and under what scope (owned by authorized wallet), without needing to explain return values beyond the implied list.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description contributes nothing about parameters (there are none), and the baseline for 0 params is 4, as there is nothing to explain.

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 clearly states the tool lists .ton domains owned by the authorized wallet, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like domains.records, which deals with DNS records for a domain, and dns.lookup, by emphasizing ownership.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list domains owned by the current wallet. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the 'owned by the authorized wallet' scope provides sufficient usage context, distinguishing it from related tools.

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