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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not mention return format, potential errors, or any nuances like domain format expectations. While annotations cover safety, the description should still disclose behavioral traits such as whether the score is numeric or has a scale, which it does not.

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, focused sentence: 'Get authority score for a domain.' Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any information about the output format or what the authority score represents. Given no output schema, the description could have provided basic context on the return value, making this less complete than ideal.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'domain' parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining the expected format (e.g., 'example.com' vs 'www.example.com'). The parameter name is self-explanatory as the domain, but no additional meaning is provided. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have elaborated on parameter usage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('authority score for a domain'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like get_domain_rank by focusing on 'authority score' rather than rank, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios from the tool name and siblings.

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