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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context: results come from public Certificate Transparency logs, are flat JSON, and contain no personal data. However, it does not explicitly disclose that this starts a billed Actor run or may return before completion when waitSecs is reached, though those details exist in the input schema.

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: the first states the operational wrapper and the second gives a useful actor summary. The only minor redundancy is restating the full Actor identifier immediately after the title already contains it.

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 schema root description fully covers the feed/enrich modes, per-result billing, and maxItems cap, and an output schema exists, so the short description is adequate at a high level. It does not mention mode selection or the wait/poll flow, but those are already specified in the input schema and waitSecs parameter.

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 all 8 parameters, including mode-specific behavior, are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly echoes the domains parameter through "Also checks any domain for Shopify" and adds no parameter-level detail, 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 names the exact Actor and uses a concrete verb: "calls the Actor ... and retrieves its output results." The actor blurb further specifies the resource — newly detected Shopify stores plus domain checks — making it unmistakable what this tool does and clearly distinct from sibling run-management tools.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison to siblings like get-actor-run or get-dataset-items for polling or retrieving datasets. The actor blurb implies use cases such as new-store discovery and Shopify domain checks, but the selection rule 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.