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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'no API key' fact and explains the family verb structure, providing additional transparency beyond annotations. It does not describe return format, but the read-only nature is well-covered.

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 front-loaded with the core family name and sub-verbs, followed by a usage note and example. It is slightly verbose due to the example and trailing '..' typo, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

While the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, the description does not specify the output format or behavior for each sub-verb. An agent may not know what the return value looks like, especially since there is no output schema. This is a minor gap for a tool that could return varied results per sub-verb.

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% for both parameters, and the description enriches them further by listing the allowed sub-verb values and giving an example input. This adds meaning beyond the schema, making it clear what each parameter accepts.

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 clearly states the tool's domain (public-suffix-list) and enumerates its sub-verbs (tldPlusOne, isPublicSuffix, affiliation), making its purpose unambiguous. It also includes a concrete example that anchors the tool's behavior, distinguishing it from other whisper_* tools that serve different functions.

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 explains that no API key is required and provides a call example, which gives clear context on how and when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but given the tool's niche purpose, the guidance is adequate for an agent to decide when to use it.

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