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

The description adds useful context that the operation involves connection/DNS status, and annotations cover destructive intent. However, readOnlyHint is false, and the description does not clarify whether the check triggers any side effects, requires special permissions, or has rate limits.

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?

A single focused sentence that front-loads the action and object with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple, parameters are fully documented, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over domain-related siblings.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond stating that the operation checks domain connection/DNS status.

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 ('Check') with a clear resource ('a domain's connection / DNS status') and scope ('for a Kleap app'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like connect_domain and search_domains, which involve different operations.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list, which is not enough for confident selection.

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