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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool operates 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which is a negative constraint, but it does not describe side effects, what happens to discarded parameters, whether it performs network calls, error behavior, or any other operational details. This is minimal transparency for a tool with nine parameters.

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, concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified: it front-loads the core action but fails to address the large parameter list or clarify the tool's actual scope. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent to use effectively.

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 has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain the purpose of the many unrelated parameters, how they are used, what the return value looks like, or any operational context. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema descriptions for each parameter are explicit, including notes about discarding after checks. The description does not clarify how these parameters relate to the core function, but the schema already documents them adequately, so the baseline applies.

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 states a specific verb ('split') and resource ('hostname'), and adds a clarifying constraint ('without WHOIS or ownership data'). However, the input schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, etc.), making the actual scope ambiguous. An agent cannot tell which parameters are relevant to splitting a hostname versus the others, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, figma-url-shape, etc.). The description does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria. An agent has no basis to decide between this tool and the other shape-checking tools.

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