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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: 'it never edits DNS', plan limits (maxSendingDomains), owner-only authorization ('workspace grants do not apply'), that remove unassigns the domain from events, and requestId reuse semantics for lost responses. The requestId retry guidance is consistent with, not contradictory to, idempotentHint=false (the underlying mutation is not idempotent; dedup is via requestId).

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?

Front-loads purpose and optionality, then walks actions in workflow order. Dense but largely earns its length; a few clauses (e.g. the two-minute refresh aside) could be trimmed.

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 complex multi-action, no-output-schema tool, it covers return values for add (dnsRecords, detectedProvider, domainId) and verify (status, pendingRecords, isDefault, senderIdentity), the authorization model, plan limits, and a related MCP resource guide. Nothing essential is missing.

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's payload is a generic open object at 67% coverage, so the description does the heavy lifting by specifying each action's payload fields: add (domain, requestId), verify (domainId), setDefault (domainId, requestId), remove (domainId, requestId). It could still say more about expectedRevision/reviewHash that the generic schema mentions.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Owner-confirmed connection of the organizer's own email sending domain.' It distinguishes this tool from the managed-sending path ('Use the managed sending tools for that path'), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says the capability is optional, names the alternative (SocialLoop-managed addresses / managed sending tools), and prescribes the exact workflow: create every DNS record, then call verify. It also maps each action to its trigger condition (add/verify/remove/setDefault).

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