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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds key context: needs account token, auto-renew turns off, transfer code emailed within a day, domain keeps working until it moves, and no charge. This goes well beyond annotations and covers the mutation's side effects.

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?

Densely packed with useful information in four sentences, front-loaded with the action and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value.

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 destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, timing, and cost. It could mention what happens on failure or whether the transfer can be cancelled, but it's quite complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description explains that confirm=true applies it and false leaves unchanged, adding meaning beyond the schema description which already states this. It also implies the token requirement, though not a parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Starts moving a domain registered here to another registrar.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like domain_renewal or connect_domain by naming the transfer-out action.

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?

Provides strong context on what happens (auto-renew off, code emailed) and the effect of confirm=true/false, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like domain_renewal or point_domain.

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