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

The description says 'Validate... then return one HTTPS page,' which sounds like a read-only operation, yet annotations set readOnlyHint=false. This suggests the tool may have side effects (e.g., creating a transaction) that are not disclosed. The description does not explain what 'send' entails, whether a wallet is required, or what effects occur beyond returning a page. With annotations already indicating non-read-only behavior, the description adds insufficient context and potentially underplays mutability.

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, efficient sentence that clearly front-loads the action ('Validate... then return'). There is no redundant wording or fluff. It earns its place by covering the core purpose without unnecessary 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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned HTTPS page represents, how to use it, or what 'exact TON Storage DNS site transaction' means. The readOnlyHint=false suggests additional behavior that the description fails to cover. Given the existence of similar sibling tools, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full effect and usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'bag and domain' which maps to bagId and domain, adding basic context that the tool validates ownership of these. However, it does not clarify the expected format, constraints, or relationship between the parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds only minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Validate bag and domain ownership, then return one HTTPS page for the exact TON Storage DNS site transaction.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and its scope (storage-backed DNS site transaction). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'sites.send_link_tx', which may serve a similar purpose for non-storage sites, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which a different tool should be used. The context signals show several related 'send_*_tx' and 'link_tx' tools, but the description offers no differentiation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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