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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context by flagging real-time freshness and enumerating return fields (blocking status, block rate across ISPs, evidence), but it discloses no rate limits, latency, or coverage caveats.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the return summary. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is a lightweight list rather than substantive detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes what is returned, and both required params are documented in the schema. However, for a tool sitting among many overlapping censorship/accessibility siblings, the description lacks the routing context an agent needs to pick it confidently.

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%, with both domain and country fully documented including examples and the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 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 (check) and resource (domain/service accessibility in a specific country), and adds real-time scope plus the shape of the result (blocking status, block rate across ISPs, evidence). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from similarly named siblings such as check_domain_blocked, get_ai_service_availability, or get_national_blocklist.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The phrase 'right now' implies a temporal scope (current status vs. historical tools like get_domain_timeline), but the agent must infer that itself, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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