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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the useful behavioral fact that agent domain changes need human approval by default. However, it does not disclose side effects like triggering external DNS checks or potential failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description omits how approval_id and approval_token are used, when to call this tool, and how the human approval flow works. This leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description needed to explain parameters like domain_id and approval_id, but it only mentions the approval requirement generically. approval_token is the only parameter with a schema description, and domain_id/approval_id remain unexplained.

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 ('refresh') and resource ('custom-domain DNS and SSL verification status'), clearly distinguishing it from domain CRUD siblings like add_domain/delete_domain. It also adds a policy note about human approval, but does not explicitly contrast with other verification/list tools.

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 sentence 'Agent domain changes require human approval by default' implies a use case after domain changes, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_domains or add_domain, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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