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

Annotations already declare this as a non-idempotent, non-destructive write with open-world effects, so the bar is lowered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: certificate status is surfaced by the show action, and custom-domain work needs DNS changes plus a certificate with a weekly retry limit. It stops short of describing side effects of switching the address type (e.g., whether the previous address stops resolving) or required permissions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope and the sibling pointer; each sentence carries content. Slightly dense, with the exclusion clause packing in DNS and certificate-limit details that could be trimmed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description tells the agent that show returns current state plus certificate state, which is the key return-value expectation. For a mixed read/write address tool with fully documented parameters, only the consequences of set_type and permission requirements are left unstated.

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% and every parameter (including the three enums) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource (the account's quiz-facing address) and enumerates the three operations: show current state with certificate status, set a subdomain, and switch the address type. It also names which address kinds exist (service, subdomain, custom) and explicitly routes per-quiz link changes to set_quiz_link, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly states what is out of scope — connecting a custom domain, which requires owner-side DNS edits and certificate issuance with a weekly retry cap done in the dashboard — and names the sibling that handles the adjacent task (set_quiz_link). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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