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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contents (domain status, registration dates, lock/privacy settings, paging metadata) and the cost of 2 tokens. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'List' implies it, and the detail provided is solid for a list operation.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: scope, return contents, and cost. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool with two self-documenting parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and cost. It is sufficiently complete given the low complexity and rich schema context.

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 100%, so page and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters, only mentioning 'paging metadata' generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource (domains owned or managed by the Vee3 account) and the registration scope ('registered through Vee3'). This distinguishes it from siblings like domains.lookup or clerk.list_domains.

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 implies when to use the tool—'domains this Vee3 account owns or manages'—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context for the intended use case but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance compared to higher-scoring examples.

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