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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false and destructive=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the verification difference between 'hosting' (auto-verified + HTTPS) and 'compute' (does not self-verify, must poll get_status), plus cost ('Free'). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: purpose first, then the target-mode distinction, prerequisites, fallback tool, and docs link. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what is returned (DNS records) and the follow-up behavior (poll get_status for compute). For a mutation tool with no annotations detail and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it meaningfully explains the 'target' enum values and their defaults and ties the 'service' param to the compute target. However projectId and domain are not described at all, leaving a partial gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 verb+resource (connect a domain) and immediately scopes it with the key qualifier that the user must already own it. It also clarifies what the tool returns (DNS records to add at the registrar), making it clearly distinct from siblings like provision_hosting and diagnose_domain.

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 gives prerequisites ('The app must be deployed first') and routes troubleshooting to the alternative ('Not working yet? lavela.diagnose_domain'). It also explains the when-to-choose logic between the two target modes, so nothing is left to inference.

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