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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: why it is read-only (binding happens in DNS on the owner's side) and the real-world failure mode it diagnoses (link broken because the certificate is pending).

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, why it is safe/read-only, and when to reach for it. The purpose is front-loaded 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the two returned facts (domain/subdomain and certificate state). It does not describe the certificate states that may be returned, which is a minor residual gap for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the origin hint '(из workspace://list)', so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about workspace_id, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the work.

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 (returns) plus the exact resource: the account's domain/subdomain and its certificate state. It also implicitly separates itself from the write counterpart by framing the tool as read-only versus DNS binding done by the owner. An agent can identify this as the diagnostic read without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger — use it when the public link does not open, because the domain is typically bound but the certificate is not yet issued. It also rules out the mutation path (domain binding is a DNS edit on the owner's side), though it never names the sibling manage_workspace_domain explicitly.

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