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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-claiming write. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: first-to-verify wins, server-side throttling of rapid re-checks, and propagation delay. It never contradicts the annotations, though it says little about failure modes other than 'verified is false'.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and consequence, followed by ordering, polling, and follow-up guidance — every sentence carries operational information. Slightly dense as a single run-on block, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still covers the false-verification path and where to look for certificate state. Complete for a one-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents hostname with an example. The description adds no format or validation hints beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 and resource: checks the DNS TXT challenge for a claimed domain, then binds hostname to tenant and starts certificate issuance. It is clearly distinguishable from create_custom_domain (which issues the records) and get_custom_domain (which only watches status).

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?

Explicit sequencing ('Call this ONCE after the human confirms they have added the DNS records from create_custom_domain'), an explicit anti-pattern with reasoning ('do NOT poll this in a loop'), and a named alternative for the follow-up action (get_custom_domain). 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.