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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully explains what the tool returns: candidate names across every ending, each tagged with one of five ownership/defensibility states. It does not mention side effects or performance characteristics, but for a search-like read operation the disclosed behavior is clear and usable.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and outcome; the second delivers the critical input rule. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both the input constraint and the return semantics: candidate names plus their defensive state categories. It does not elaborate on each state, but the low complexity and clear schema make the description adequately complete.

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 already fully covers the single query parameter, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds value by framing the input as a concept rather than a domain, effectively giving the agent a negative constraint that is absent from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Find domain names for an idea') and explains what the result contains (candidates with defensibility states). It also differentiates itself from domain-specific siblings by explicitly instructing the agent to pass a concept, not a 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?

The description clearly states the intended use case: an idea should be turned into candidate domain names. It gives a 'when-not' guidance ('Pass the concept, not a domain'), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when those should be preferred, so it falls just short of a 5.

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